(S OF TECH/ti 0,
JUL 6 1966
RERARA
DESIGN
REVIEW
URBAN
IN
R ENEW AL
A Case Study of the Boston Redevelopment Authority
by
PHILIP SINCLAIR WILL
Bachelor of Architecture
Cornell University
(1964)
Tau Beta Pi
(1963)
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF
CITY PLANNING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
May 20, 1966
y..,~1*
Signature of A
ww...
w,...............
Department of City and Regional Planning, May 20, 1966
Certified
by.........
..
I
Accepted
A
by..............n
I \
,~-I
9..........
.......
Thesis Supervisor
.
Graduate Students........
Chairma ,Departmental Committee on Graduate Students
038
DESIGN REVIEW IN URBAN RENEWL
A Case Study of the Boston Redevelopment Authority
PHILIP SINCLAIR WILL
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING ON
MAY 20, 1966, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF CITY PLANNING.
The unique opportunities for control and process planning that exist in
Urban kenewal have inade possible the exploration of design techniques
that have not been possible before. Boston in particular has been a
laboratory for such exploration. Emerging from this experience is a
more meaningful and helpful public policing of both public and private
development as a part of a wide spectrum of city design activities.
Through urban renewal and design review, the Boston Redevelopment Authority has become an important second client to architects and developers.
As this second client it has effectively provided a two-way communication
channel bridging the gap between the design plan and its implementation.
The process approach to design that -has been developing from national
and local experience is based on a clear distinction between development
controls and police power controls. Development controls are based on
rights obtained by the public agency comparable to those of a private
landowner to impose conditions and restrictions in the disposition of
property.
Police power controls, on the other hand, are based on uni-
fority of application and withholding of development rights only where
the public health, safety, or general welfare is threatened. This
difference results in the potential choice between a very flexible open
approach to design and control or a very tight one. Either may rely
heavily on review of developer proposals.
The following pages examine the shaping of the elements in the design
review process in Boston to effectuate its design goals in the various
contexts of redevelopment. These elements include (1) design objectives
and controls contained in the urban renewal plans and disposition docu.
ments, (2) liaison procedures including assistance in gaining approvals
from other agencies, coordination, provision of information, and provision of design assistance, and (3) review by the Design Advisory Committee.
The contexts in which these are examined include public and private devel..
opers, predominance of design or other agency objectives, strong or weak
market conditions, and renewal and non-renewal areas. Each of these pose
different challenges to the design and review processes.
Finally, suggestions are made as to how the review process might be im.
proved and extended into non-renewal areas. These include establishing
a general design framework more consonant with traditional applications
of the police power, as is suggested by investigations into perception
theory, distinguishing various levels of significance to structure what
projects and what aspects of their design should be reviewed, broadening
the incentives for both voluntary and mandatory review, and strengthening
the various elements in the review process.
Thesis Supervisor: Donald S. Appleyard
Title: Assistant Professor of City Planning
-2-
ACKN0LEDGIENTS
This study grew with the generous support and assistance of
many persons. Charles A. Hilgenhurst, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Director of Design Review, is deserving of particular thanks for
time spent in discussions and for much of the primary information
made available for use in this thesis. Thanks are also due to other
B.R.A. staff members and to the membersoof the Design Advisory Committee,
particularly Pietro Belluschi, FAIA, and Lawrence Anderston, past
and present deans of M.I.T. ts School of Architecture and Planning
for information and insights into the operations of Design Review.
Of those looking at review from the receiving end, Max G.
Kargman, President of the First Realty Corporation of Boston, and
James Linehan, President of the Development Corporation of America,
were particularly helpful.
Numerous architects doing renewal work
in Boston also gave freely of their time for interviews probing their
experiences and thoughts on review.
The ultimate responsibility for the organization and content
of the thesis lie with the writer. However, many of the underlying
concepts were generated through contacts with the faculty, staff,
and fellow students of M.I.T.'s Department of City and Regional
Planning. Of these, Kevin Iynch is to be thanked for suggesting
the study area and making available his files on the Government Center
and the Waterfront renewal projects; and Donald Appleyard for valuable
criticisms and suggestions made in the course of the study.
Continued patience, inspiration, and encouragement are valuable
commodities. The writer is grateful to have found them in his parents.
This thesis and much else would not have found life without them.
-3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................
ACKIL ES
..... ..............................
............................
******..
**......
3
CHAPTER I: THE STUDY OF SECTION 603................................. 7
DEFINITION AND FUNCTION
a. Providing Flexibility
b. Asserting the Importance of
Design Objectives
c. Redressing the Balance Between
Public and Private Objectives
d. Impvoving Design Communication
e. Discouraging Certain Kinds of
Developers
STRATEGY
a. Strategy
b. Contexts
12
12
13
14
APPROACH
AND DESIGN
The Public
Design and
Strong and
CONTEXT
and Private Redeveloper
Other Agency Objectives
Weak Market Conditions
SUMMARY
15
15
21
22
23
24
25
BOSTON RENEWAL AND DESIGN FRAME0RK................... 27
BOSTON RENEiAL PROGRAM
a. Capital Improvements Program
b. General Plan and "Capital Web" Concept
BASIC ORGANIZATION AND REVIM4 PROCEDURES
SUMMARY
CHAPTER IV:
11
BACKGROUND - URBAN RENEWAL DESIGN AND CONTEXT..........
THE PROCESS
DISPOSITION
a.
b.
c.
CHAPTER III:
10
12
SUMMARY
CHAPTER II:
8
10
ELEMENTS OF THE REVIEi PRCCESS.
DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CONTROLS
LIAISON
DESIGN ADVISORY CMMITTEE
a. Rendering Expert Opinion
b. Applying Political Pressure
-4-
27
28
29
32
38
....................
40
40
48
53
56
59
CHAPTER V:
REVIEW IN OPERATION..................................... 64
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPERS
a.
b.
CONFLICTING
a.
b.
Public Developers
Private Developers
AGENCY OBJECTIVES
Good Design
Public Acceptance and Other Agency
CDbbectives
STRONG AND WEAK MARKET CONDITIONS
64
64
71
78
78
79
80
Strong Market
Weak Market
80
82
RENEWAL AND NON-RENEWAL PROJECT AREAS
83
a.
b.
CHAPTER VI:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................ 87
ISSUES
88
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Allowing Creativity
Placing Responsibility
Avoiding Corruption
Establishing Strategy of Control
Other Problems
RECOM4ENDATIONS
88
89
90
90
91
91
a.
b.
c.
Creation of "Perceptual Web"
Structure Hierarchy of Objectives
Improve Incentives for Voluntary
Cooperation
d. Strengthen Continuity
e. Avoid Overload and Strengthen
Communication
91
92
93
93
94
96
F00TNOTES......................................................,. 104
BIBL0GRPHI........................................;.109
-5-
FIGURES
1.
BOSTON:
2.
GOVERNMENT CENTER:
3.
GOVERNMENT CENTER: PARCEL 7 -- SHOP DISPLAY,
PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR EASEMENTS
98
4.
GUEENT CENTER:
99
5.
WATERFRONT:
6.
WASHINGTON PARK:
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
7.
WASHINGTON PARK:
HOUSING PROJECT
SITE DIAGRAM FOR PUBLIC
8.
"CAPITAL WEB"
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
PARCEL 7
--
SITE SECTION
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
WASHINGTON PARK: SHAD(J& DRAWING OF PREFERRED
PUBLIC HOUSING TWER LOCATION
97
100
101
102
103
CHAPTER I:
THE STUDY OF SECTION 603
All development and rehabilitation proposals and
architectural plans will be subject to design review,
comment and approval by the Boston Redevelopment Authority
prior to land disposition and prior to the commencement
of construction.
In order to assure compliance with the specific
controls and design objectives set forth in this Plan and
as more specifically set forth in the disposition documents,
the Boston Redevelopment Authority shall establish design
review procedures and evaluate the quality and appropriate.
ness of development and rehabilitation proposals with
reference to the design objectives and requirements set
forth in this Plan and in the disposition documents.
The procedures will be instituted so as to provide for a
continuing review inlorder to achieve the best in urban
design for the city.
This and similar requirements can be found in each of the Boston
renewal plans.
The following pages will examine the function and pro-
cedure of design review as it
has been developed in Boston.
The study
will emphasize the processes by which good design is achieved rather
than the actual content of design.
To do this it will examine the
context within which design review operates and the ingredients of the
review process as they are shaped to deal with the context.
The study is essentially a case study of the operations of the
Boston Redevelopment Authority.
The second chapter, however, reviews
in general the development of what has been called the process approach
to design in urban renewal and extracts from a wide range of sources
on renewal the important factors constituting the context within which
-7-
renewal and design review must operate.
The following chapters, then,
examine the Boston renewal program and general design review procedures,
examples of the various contextual factors,
and the shaping of the
review process to deal with these factors.
Because the Boston Redevelopment Authority is not on2y an actionoriented renewal agency but also the planning body for the whole city
of Boston, design review in non-renewal areas will be a secondary theme
of the study.
DEFINITION AND FUNCTION
The Urban Renewal Administration defines design review as "the
scrutiry of a redeveloper's plans by a review panel to insure that the
plans meet and carry out the project design objectives, and the panel's
subsequent recommendation to the renewal agency for approval or disapproval." 2
It will be seen, however, that design review as practiced
by the BRA is a broader phenomenon than indicated here or in the statement of Section 603 above.
To make the discussion clearer, design shall be defined here
as a process of"preparing possibilities of sets of actions shaping
the sensuous environment to achieve certain purposes."
The processes
of purposing, informing, and preparing possibilities may each be
changing with time.
The purposes constitute the "design objectives."
A prepared possible sets of actions constitute "a design."
review" is
"Design
then considered to be "an examination and evaluation of one
or more sets of actions proposed to shape the sensuous environment in
terms of the design objectives."0
The URA manual then goes on to point out that the scrutiny of
plans is backed up by day-to-day coordination and advisory services.
It states that where there is provision for design review and design
objectives in the official documents relating to redevelopment, and
when this review is based on expert professional evaluation coupled
with advisory and coordinating efforts, it becomes the complete process
of design review.
It describes this process as taking place in five
stages: 4
1.
Information services: communicating project design
objectives and conditions for approval of plans and proposals,
provision of information through written statements, graphic
materials, illustrative plans, and formal or informal discussions,
provision of information and status of other projects in the area,
and coordination with these.
2.
Technical evaluation of plans and proposals:
examination to determine conformance with the controls and condi-
tions imposed by official documents,
that sufficient information is
3.
Review:
examination to establish
present as a basis for review.
scrutiny by panel or staff.
4.
Follow up: Surveillance to insure approved designs
are carried out, liaison to assure project improvements coordinate with private development.
Assistance with changes and modifications: aid in
5.
working out necessary changes and improvements where projects
have been disapproved.
These constitute the important manifest functions of design
review and are accepted as such in the later discussions of the formal
review procedures of the BRA and in the discussion of the workings of
design objectives and controls, the Design Advisory Committee, and
liaison.
Of equal importance will be certain latent functions which
review does or might serve.
These include providing flexibility in the
planning and development process, asserting of the importance of design
criteria, redressing the balance between public and private design
-9-
objectives, discouraging certain kinds of developers from participating
in development, and educating the inarticulate client.
a.
Providing Flexibility
Uncertainty is a major characteristic of the design pro-
cess.
The difficulties of predicting future market conditions, the
range of possible developers and needs, communication problems between
the multiplicity c of persons involved, and the general complexity and
changing nature of the factors involved in design argue for a mechanism
that can incorporate changes in
information, purpose, and design.
The
designs by redevelopers' architects, in this view, are very much a part
of the basic planning process itself, and project planning is in a large
measure a goal-searching operation verifying or altering the goals of
the renewal program.
Design review is a mechanism which makes this
process possible.
b..
Asserting the Importance of Design Objectives
In the process of urban development, the design of the
sensuous environment competes with a number of other values.
A study
of the design atmosphere in Boston would show that Edward Logue is the
most important force asserting design values.
He and his program have
in turn drawn heavily on the resources provided by the design profes-
sions in Boston and the universities, particularly M.I.T. and Harvard,
for consultant services and staff.
Beside backing these values through
surveillance of redevelopment, design review makes these values effective
by giving them credibility through the prestige of its staff and the
Design Advisory Committee.
-10.
C.
Redressing the Balance between Public and Private Design
Objectives
The public and private interests are frequently at odds
with each other.
The conflict over public objectives and those of the
private developer represent the major point of conflict and negotiation
during the process of review.
oper's architect is
In Boston's renewal projects, the devel.
subject to review in all aspects of design, though
the general framework within which he operates is
generally open.
The
function of design review here is to assert the major design objectives
over private objectives where the two are in conflict.
d.
Improving Design Communication
For the uninitiated, architecture and design are diffi-
cult subjects in which to develop competence or confidence.
Few clients
who undertake construction experience more than a "one-shot" effort.
Though a client may be receptive to good design, he cannot easily under-.
stand or evaluate the architects'
presentation.
Similarly, the public
at large finds it difficult to understand or evaluate the design effects
of public programs for which it
is ultimately responsible.
A large
measure of the responsibility for bridging this communication gap is
placed on the architectural profession both to stimulate an awareness:
and teach the principles of good design.
unusual profession --
Architecture,
however, is
extremely individualistic, ungenerous in its
criticism of its fellows, and riddled by debate.
Here design review
functions to provide a central 1source of evaluation which serves in
part to bridge this communication gap.
-11.
an
e.
Discouraging Certain Kinds of Developers
One of the major claims that is made for design review
is that more than anything else it discourages the developer who among
other things is not design oriented from participating in renewal.
In
this view the most important means by which to achieve good project
design is to bar the hack architect and the developer whose sole aims
are to build quickly and cheaply for the maximum profit.
STRATEGY
The shaping of the review process to achieve its design objectives and fulfil
the above functions within a variety of contexts
constitutes the strategy of review.
The discussion of strategy will
examine the kinds of design objectives and controls that are employed,
the character of design liaison, and the role of the Design Advisory
Committee.
The various contexts in which the effectiveness of the
strategy of review will be examined include different types of devel..
opers and architects, conflicting agency objectives, various market
conditions, and renewal and non-renewal areas.
Among the particular
kinds of strategy choices and factors that will be examined will be:
a.
Strategy
1.
Design objectives and controls.
tight or open; general or specific; fixed or flexible.
These may be
They may be
designed to be operational, consistent, and complete without impinging
on the creative talents of the ultimate designers.
They may attempt
to provide a positive framework for design or they may be used to
establish bargaining points with developers.
-12-
2.
Liaison.
continuous or intermittent.
Liaison may be formal or informal,
It may emphasize technical inputs and
coordination or design values.
It may be used to bring out implicit
objectives or rely on explicit statements.
It may be used to act as
a supplement or replacement for design objectives and controls.
It may
assist developers in getting financing or other agency approvals or it
may make these difficult.
3.
Design Advisory Committee.
The Design Advisory
Committee may play a limited role and simply pass on the architectural
quality of particular proposals made by developers, or it
may play a
broader role, reviewing and supporting agency plans and consultants,
participating in policy decisions, arbitrating design disputes between
architects, clients, and the agency.
Their agenda may be crisis
oriented or designed to provide a full and continuous participation
in the review process.
b.
Contexts
1.
iDifferent types of developers and architects.
Developers may be public or private.
investors or users.
Private developers may be
Any of these may be large or small, strong or
weak in design capacity.
2.
Conflicting agency objectives.
A renewal agency
may be concerned in general or in particular cases with objectives
other than design.
These may include getting a maximum dollar return
from the sale of the land (not the case in Boston), provision of low
rent housing (particularly for relocatees), political acceptance, and
construction schedule.
-13-
3.
Market conditions.
The market for a particular
kind of development in a particular location may be strong or weak.
There may be many developers with good architects competing for a
particular parcel, or bidders may have to be sought out.
Financial
resources may be ample or limited.
4.
Renewal and non-renewal areas.
SUNMARY
Design review has been defined as an examination and evaluation
of proposed sets of actions shaping the sensuous environment in terms of
certain purposes.
Its manifest function is to achieve effective design
through information services, technical evaluation of plans and proposals, review, follow up, and assistance with changes and modifications.
In addition, it may serve certain latent functions which include providing flexibility, asserting the importance of design objectives,
discouraging certain kinds of developers, redressing the balance between
public and private design objectives, and improving design communication.
Through an examination of the review strategy and its application
in various contexts, the following chapters will attempt to evaluate the
effectiveness of the BRA in fulfilling these functions, including the
design objectives.
-14-~
CHAPTER II:
BACKGROUND - URBAN REN&ThAL DESIGN AND CONTEXT
Thewunderstanding of the role of design review in urban renewal
is
in
part predicated on concepts developed during the early 1960's.
Case studies of early projects show a frequent failure to achieve welldesigned results.
Roger Montgomery, as design consultant to the URA,
concluded in his study that "this disappointing performance results
to a large extent from the inability of public agencies to bridge gaps
in responsibility and to control design decision sequences.
Several
recent innovations based upon clearer notions of control opportunities
in the urban renewal process promise to improve the design of renewal
areas.
The most sophisticated innovations embody a renewal project
planning approach aimed at 'process comprehensiveness' rather than
'plan comprehensiveness.'"i
The following section summarizes the pro-
cess approach set forth by Montgomery designed to bridge gaps and
control design decisions.
This is followed by an examination of
national experience with disposition, drawing out the important factors.
THE PROCESS APPROACH
Broadly speaking, urban renewal takes place in two stages.
The
first consists of setting the over-all community goals and planning the
project.
The second consists of a series of actions during which acqui.
sition, clearance,
relocation, disposition, rehabilitation, and
redevelopment take place.
Phase one results in an Urban Renewal Plan
-15-
which states a program to eliminate blight and deterioration, sets forth
conditions to prevent the recurrence of blight and assure long-term
stability, establishes community objectives for development and design
in
conformance with the community general plan, and provides legal
notice to the residents.
The second series of actions
--
acquisition, relocation, clear-
ance, project improvements, rehabilitation, land disposition, and
redevelopment
--
contain the bases for the urban renewal design process.
Within the limitations of market and administrative processes, the city
can exercise considerable freedom in controlling the use, design of
structures, placement on the land, and the location and design of public
and private open space to achieve its design goals.
Montgomery points out that there are a number of powerful constraints to be lived with, each with the power to destroy the program
beyond its stated aims, shatter design responsibility into bits and
pieces, and separate plans from the process of their realization.
Included in the list are:
control, (2)
(1) the dichotomy between public and private
the tension between federal and municipal agencies,
(3)
the
division of power among different federal agencies, and (4) the fragmentation of power at the local level.
These tend to cut and dismember the design process.
Ideally
design decisions flow in an uninterrupted stream from the earliest ones
about programming and goals to final details of construction and use.
This fragmentation is
within which it finds itself.
built into urban renewal by the context
Montgomery states that the context can
best be understood in terms of a "gap" hypothesis.
..16..
The implications are
that successful accomplishment in urban renewal design results from the
building of bridges across public-private, federal-local, federalinteragency, and local-interagency splits.
The most important gap divides the design continuum into zones
with public control on one side and private control on the other.
The
public side is expressed in such terms as the comprehensive plan, goals
of 'balanced community," economic development,
and tax base increases.
The private side is expressed by private initiative, profit, and status.
Montgomery concludes that a major source of failure in early
renewal plans to bridge this gap and positively influence design was to
a large extent the use of "comprehensive plan implementation tools."
These essentially took the form of land use maps and sets of controls
and restrictions patterned on zoning.
The subsequent parceling of the
land to many developers proved the inefficacy of these tools for
implementing design.
In an effort to achieve better design, three general approaches
took shape during the early 1960? s.
The first aimed at using the oppor-
tunities for tight controls implicit in the urban renewal plan.
The
second took advantage of renewal's possibilities for control through
administrative process.
The third effort, which Montgomery recommends,
and which with some elaboration characterizes the approach in Boston,
represents a combination of these two approaches.
Police power land use controls are founded on two principles:
one, the withholding of development rights only where public health,
safety, morals, or general welfare are threatened; and the second, that
they should have uniformity of application.
-17-
Land use controls in urban
renewal derive from the premises that the renewal agency has the rights
of a private landowner and may impose in the sale contract whatever
restrictions it chooses within the law.7
Disposition of land is at
fair value for the uses in accordance with the urban renewal plan,
taking into account the effects on land value derived from the controls
imposed.
No need for uniform application exists since each parcel may
be controlled independently and its
value determined accordingly.
The first approach, characterized by "tight plans," has employed
a nearly complete and literal writing in of detailed design.
in
Included
the urban renewal plan are setback lines, building lines, maximum
and minimum height limits, functional layout, location of entrances,
and even fenestration patterns.
Questions are raised as to what would
have happened had no developer been found or had someone come along
with more creative architects working for the developer rather than the
agency.
Beside these problems, Montgomery lists a number of other
problems faced by tight plans:
1.
When specific building form and site layout are built
into the urban renewal plan, it
takes formal action by the local legis-
lature, the plan commission, and the HHFA to make any significant changes.
Even with the more generalized controls, these prove costly in time,
energy, and money, and often generate pointless conflict.
2.
It generally takes about seven years to move from legis-
lative approval of the urban renewal plan to an advanced stage of
redevelopment.
Market research, which under these -conditions is extremely
shakey, and the inevitable factors which crap up during execution produce
difficulties which argue for deferring detailed design decisions until a
time much nearer actual redevelopment.
-18..
The second approach is based on open plans, where the design is
left to the redeveloper and his site planners.
The urban renewal plan
sets forth a design process including (1) a procedure for the design of
public space and other site improvements which insures that they will
dovetail with the private redevelopment, and (2) a process of land
disposition requiring formal collaboration between the public planner
and private architect during design.
The urban renewal plan contains a formal statement of renewal
and design objectives to support its
the design process.
development.
1.
open controls and carefully define
This acts as a miniature constitution for design
This approach contains a number of advantages.
In terms of the gap hypothesis, it
introduces a zone of
shared control in the design continuum representing good design better
than a land use map.
2.
Contrary to the tight plan, it
accepts the primary role
of the private entrepreneur in redevelopment investment decisions.
3.
The seven.year interval between plan approval and active
redevelopment cannot cripple open plans to the extent of tight plans.
4.
It provides room for architectural and entrepreneurial
inventiveness at points where tight plans shut it out. 8
5.
It
avoids the cumbersome quantities of too much detail
and the difficulties of obtaining approval for changes in the renewal
plan.
However, it runs into the problem that there is little American
private experience with procedural or administrative land use control
in place of statutory standards.
There is
..19-
also a tendency to citrcum-
scribe public initiative.
In some cases it is held that functional
complexity or market softness may be overcome by public leadership in
preparing detailed over-all designs.
Another difficulty which occurred at Hartford, holding up disposition, was the inclusion of a height limit on the urban renewal plan
which served no purpose either in
terms of preventing the shading of
adjoining property or the protection of the skyline.
Montgomery states
that this illustrates the need to distinguish between planning controls
and design or development controls.
The more recent innovations in
renewal planning attempt to draw
upon both the previous streams of thought,
while avoiding the defects of each.
extracting their advantages
In this lay the seeds for what
Montgomery calls the "comprehensive process" approach, encompassing the
advantages of the flexible open project plans yet retaining the opportunity for appropriate public leadership in design decisions.
Montgomery
condenses this process into three main components:9
1.
Preliminary Work and the Urban Renewal Plan.
Studies are undertaken to explore design potentials and to
establish a strategy for design actions. From these studies
come the design objectives and controls set forth in the urban
renewal plan and the actions and procedures devised to accom-
plish the objectives. The plan follows the open or flexible
mode rather than building in tight design. (Note that this is
just the beginning of project planning work, not the end.
Conventional planning -.. and urban design -- have ended in the
survey and planning phase before renewal action gets underway.)
2.
DesignfPlan. At the beginning of renewal operations, the public agency prepares design plans in incremental
but continuous fashion. These plans may become detailed:
they
may include the actual design of the site improvements and other
public construction, advisory material, and design for owners
who are rehabilitating their properties, and design plans to
serve as a basis for land disposition and redevelopment.
-20.
The
degree of detail and refinement will vary from time to time
during the years of project execution, and from place to place
within the project, in order to meet real situations as they
occur.
Design Action. Each renewal action -- site
3.
improvements, rehabilitation, land disposition, redevelopment either follows the design plans or the design plans are used as
a yardstick against which alternatives are measured. Processes
for reviewing redevelopment proposals, effecting design coordination, organizing land disposition, and so on, are detailed,
enunciated, and put into operation.
To achieve flexibility and better design, it is clear that this
method puts a heavy emphasis on administrative procedural controls
rather than specific controls contained in
the urban renewal plan.
The thesis will later point out some limitations in the open, or flexi.
ble, plan as outlined.
DISPOSITION AND DESIGN CONTEXT
The developer selection and the following processes of plan
execution are in many ways as important as the design objectives and
controls in their effects on design quality.
There are four basic
methods by which developers may be selected:
(1) sealed bids, public
auction, and public auction with guaranteed bid; (2)
predetermined
price; (3) negotiated disposition under other than competitive conditions; and (4) negotiated disposition under open competitive conditions
and fixed price bidding on other than price basis. 1 0
Those agencies which are concerned, as a community goal, with
obtaining maximum dollar return, have tended toward methods of price
competition.
Those concerned with controlling the redevelopment process
and their ability to exercise discretion in the selection of the optimum
plan have favored the other techniques.
-21-.
From national experience in
renewal, different situations and different overall objectives have
been found to affect the relative importance and ease of achieving
design goals.
a.
These may be summarized as follows:
The Public and Private Redeveloper
There are many categories of persons who will have an
interest in the land.
Included are lending agencies, public or govern-
mental agencies, and other semi-public or private users.
The latter
may be (1) the user who acquires land for the conduct of its own
activities, (2)the capitalist-investor who uses money to make money,
and (3)
the builders who buys land as a semi-processed good to combine
with structural improvements for sale.11
profit and profit.
Users may be divided into non-
Each of these has different financial resources,
different needs, and different modes of operation.
The most significant
differences are those between the public developer and the private
developer.
Public.
Having comparable powers of eminant domain and
being partners in government, public agencies need not subject themselves to design controls.
This, as well as status aspirations, jealous-
ly guarded prerogatives, and differences in standards can make negotia..
tion anc cooperation difficult.
Critical forces opting for cooperation
include the ability of the renewal agency to write down the cost of
clearance, the substitution of capital costs for part of the city's
contribution to renewal project costs, political pressure,
objectives.
and common
If an atmosphere of cooperation exists, design procedures
may be established by mutual agreement.
-22-
Private.
Private developers, lacking the power of
eminant domain, must accept the controls imposed by the local agency
on the project lands the developer needs or desires.
Though land may
be of unique value to a particular developer, such as a non.profit
institution seeking to expand,
and though it may expect preferred
treatment, it has no direct power to avoid the controls.
Profit users
and investors will be seeking the most felicitous combination of
productivity and price, with social objectives playing a minimal role
in their design calculations.
Private users and institutions are more
likely to have design objectives compatible with the local agency.
b.
Design and Other Agency Objectives
The local agency may seek a number of different and con-
flicting objectives, the balance of which will determine the most
appropriate method of disposition and the sacrifices that will be made
to achieve design aims.
Among the most frequent objectives are maximum
sale price, low rent housing and sale to relocatees, good design, and
political acceptance.
Maximum sale price.
The most favored method of disposi-
tion is one of the various forms of competitive bidding, though the
actual method may depend on market factors or whether the redeveloper
will be public or private.
The controls used and the proposed reuse
of the land will be reflected in the price paid for the land.
Where
capable developers are discouraged from bidding under competitive condi.
tions, negotiation may be a better methodvfor securing a higher price.
In either case, money spent on land will be at the cost of money spent
on design and structure.
The BRA does not use this method, always fixing
the price of the land.
-23-
Low rent housing and home ownership for relocatees.
Methods which eliminate persons through competitive means and emphasize
investment in
land rather than structure will put the reuse out of the
reach of the desired beneficiaries.
Where these are a large number of
parcels, fixed price sales may be preferred.
Where there are a limited
number of sites or where housing is to be built by a developer who will
rent units, negotiation or limited competition on non-price grounds may
be preferred.
Where there are a large number of sites to be used pri-
marily for relocatees,
design guidance and review become paramount.
Good design.
To overcome various factors militating
against good design, it is desirable among other things to have a
sympathetic community and political atmosphere, competent developers,
and competent designers working for the developers and the agency.
Developer selection on design grounds will be an important criterion,
along with financial backing and experience.
Architectural competition,
the selection of quality architects for public projects, close design
liaison, and architectural review may all play an important role.
Good
design need not be forgotten where other objectives are impDrtant.
Political acceptance.
The local agency may be working
toward political acceptance of renewal and thus desire to get visible
results quickly, favoring choice on the basis of construction schedule.
In other situations it may be necessary to hire a local builder, architect, or sponsor.
Good design may also be a critical point of
acceptance.
c.
Strong and Weak Market Conditions
In most cases the acceptable choice of disposition cannot
be made until the market for the land has been explored sufficiently
-24-
to reveal the extent and nature of demand.
be attractive to developers.
Investment proposals must
There are a number of reasons why devel-
opers may be discouraged from competing for a project, such as project
location, size, purpose, complications of dealing with a government
agency, changed market conditions, and the nature of reuse.
If land
is disposed of early, the market may be weaker than later when the nature
of improvements and the future character of the area has been better
established.
A later selling time also avoids the problem of long wait-
ing periods for the redeveloper under which market conditions may change.
Strong market.
Where there is a strong market with
experienced and well financed developerZteams vying for the undertaking
of a project, competitive methods may produce the best results.
Where
developers are competent, there is less need for tight plans with
greater opportunity for control through administrative procedures than
where there is
an aura of speculation.
Weak market.
Where the market is weak or where there is
a relative absence of competent, experienced developers, or where the
project is of a highly complex nature, there may be need of some promo.
tion and negotiation.
Such conditions may require considerable flexi.
bility to make projects attractive to the developers with particular
needs.
This puts a greater responsibility on review to avoid both
administrative red tape and to achieve its design objectives.
STEMARY
The process approach to design is an attempt to bridge design
gaps.
It uses flexible development process controls rather than
-25-
controls based on the police power.
It
includes design objectives,
continuous and incremental preparation of design plans, and review of
developer proposals which may follow or elaborate on the design plans.
Experience in land disposition suggests that significant factors
in determining the character and importance of disposition and design
processes have been the kind of developer, the relative importance of
various social and agency objectives, and market conditions.
-26-
CHAPTER III:
BOSTON RENEWAL AND DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Boston has been called a laboratory for the demonstration of
The following sections summarize (1) the overall
renewal techniques.
planning and development of the city's program and (2) the basic organi.zation and procedures of the Boston Redevelopment Authority as they
relate to review.
Subsequent chapters examine in greater depth the
shaping of the principal elements of the review process and its
func-
tioning in various contexts.
BOSTON REN1AL PROGRAM
The 1959 city elections put into office a strong mayor, John F.
Collins, and a strong renewal program.
Previous essays in renewal by
Boston had been political, social, and design disasters.
However,
Collins believed it to be an essential tool in attacking the city' s
problems.
The hiring of Edward Logue, whose skills at administration
and the attraction of federal dollars into the city had been proven in
New Haven, and the reorganization of the redevelopment authority into a
combined planning and executive function under him, represented impor..
tant steps in what is
now Boston's working program.
One of Mayor Collins' first major proclamations outlined ten
areas to be studied.
These included the Government Center proposal for
Scolly Square, which had been planned during the previous Haynes administration but never got off paper, the business district, the waterfront,
-27.
and renovation of what were considered the most run-down residential
neighborhoods.
Within weeks the Eisenhower housing administratorshad
approved and agreed to finance these, raising Boston from seventeenth
to fourth on the list of cities in terms of the size of federal
commitment.
A strong and explicit commitment to quality design is one
6f the program' s major characteristics.
This commitment can be found
in the recently published general plan, the capital improvements program, the various renewal plans, disposition and review procedures,
and the size and quality of design staff.
The Capital Improvements Program and the General Plan outline
the broad strategy for design.
They also contain a number of suggestions
,not yet implemented for future extensions of review.
a.
Capital Improvements Program
The capital improvements program calls for the construc-
tion of twenty new buildings a year against an average of three during
the twelve years prior to its undertaking.
Heavy investments are
scheduled for schools, police, fire, and public works.
Because these
various agencies have limited qualified staff to handle plan review,
construction, and supervision, the program proposes that "the position
of city architect be created as a centralized position" with responsibility for supervising design and construction of all building for the
city except schools.
It further suggests that to assure "creative design
in municipal buildings" a board of five notably qualified persons be used
to consult with the architect on design.
This, it
states, might be
accomplished by expanding the role of the Design Advisory Committee
presently working with the BRiA. 1 3
In addition, it is suggested that the
-28-
advice of the Boston Society of Architects be sought in creating new
procedures for obtaining the services of qualified architects.
These proposals have not been fully implemented.
Some
investigation has been made by the BRA and the Boston Society of Archi.
tects of various methods of selections of architects for public works,
including surveys of school building departments around the country and
various methods of limited competitions.
Selection, however,
still
remains the responsibility of the particular agency, with considerable
room for politics and unimaginative, drab design.
These-problems exist
not only for the city, but for the state and federal projects as well,
as can be seen by investigations of the present governor's administration.
b.
General Plan and "Capital Web"1 Concept
The general plan lays out a broad strategy for land use
planning and physical design.
Because of the limitations of Boston's
financial resources and federally aided urban renewal, it
states that
creative use should be made of "(1) utilization, through effective
design, of the growth-inducing potential of public land, open spaces,
and buildings; (2) utilization, throu'gh effective design, of the many
influences of streets and public ways on physical development and
design; and (3)
improved relation, through public encouragement,
of
private development to constructive elements of the natural environ..
ment."
14
In regard to the first idea, it suggests that it is possible to create beneficial effects on private development through control
of the geographic distribution, site selection, and architural and landscape treatment of municipal facilities.
-29-
It views capital design as a
kind of "pump-priming" device,
encouraging private investment ard
unsubsidized building investment.
To structure the location of public
investment, the plan develops the concept of the "Capital Web."
15
Throughout the City, important community facilities should
be connected by public open space and relatively important, easi.
ly patrolled local streets. Extended continuously between sig.
nificant landmarks and centers of activity, this "Capital Web"
of community facilities would provide a unifying "seam" of
services for the common use of neighborhoods on either one of
its sides and all along its length. Some small open spaces and
elementary schools, within small, socially stable service areas,
could be located outside the principal Capital Web system; but
even these will require ties to the Capital Web through improved
local streets and pedestrian ways.
The application of this concept will, of course, vary
from neighborhood to neighborhood and from facility to facility.
But, on the whole, it should have these advantages:
(a)
Municipal efficiency, through greater efficiency
of maintenance and public safety, the sharing of facilities by
separate public agencies, and usefulness for public facilities
despite changes in population and service area boundaries;
(b)
Greater, more positive impact of public development
on private investment, through the concentration of community
facilities in the Capital Web, greater aesthetic and functional
unification of every type of development, and consistently higher
real estate values;
(c)
Social vitality, through improved public safety,
increased usefulness of public facilities to a broader range of
social and age groups, and intensification of activities at all
times of the day and in different seasons of the year.
In addition, it states that it would be desirable to
include where possible "related private facilities, such as shops,
churches, historic landmarks, multisfamily, elderly, and otherwise
special or unusually dense housing, local off-street parking, special
features of the landscape, architecture, and street design, private
community improvement ventures, and any other properties favorably
affected by proximity to large, public facilities."
Further, the potential of streets and public ways forms
an "especially important" part of the Capital Web concept.
-30.
Among other
functions, it
is
pointed out that streets constitute "channels of visual
communication, providing a sense of location and direction, views of
pertinent and interesting landmarks,
and visual comprehension of the
functions of the street system itself."t16
Through its
ipal facilities and its
structuring of the future significant munic-.
possible relation to various visually, histori-
cally, and socially significant elements, the Capital Web begins to
provide a basis for determining what areas are most important for design
consideration.
The emphasis on municipal facilities, and the primacy
of hoped-for investment efficiency, tends to obscure mar
parts of the city.
important
Examples include Back Bay and Beacon Hill.
The plan calls for an extension of review outside renewal
areas and,
facilities.
its
use for more than a routineexercise of review of municipal
At stake, it points out, is the impact of millions of dol.
lars of public and private construction not only on the appearance of
the city, but also on its efficiency and economy.
It
is hoped that the
need for this will receive increasing understanding and recognition.
The techniques suggested include either extension of the BRA's existing
policy of review over buildings and site design, or voluntary coopera-
tion of individual developers.
17
By the first means,' official sanctions in support of the
principles of Capital Design could be brought to bear on the
design, location, and timing of new public facility construc.
tion, including public buildings, streets, and open spaces.
Plans and specifications for new private building construction,
outside as well as inside Renewal project areas, impossible
under present law, would also be held to high standards of
architectural design.
While it points out the impossibility of prescribing
every aspect of the architectural design of buildings, the plan main.
-31-.
tains that it would be desirable to establish general design standards
which could be applied throughout the city yet leave room for variation
and diversity in design.
Schools, neighborhood indoor and outdoor
recreation facilities, and streets and street furnishing are listed
among those public facilities where standards should be applied.
standards are under study by the BRA and its consultants.
has been stated that it
Such
Though it
would be desirable to extend review of private
and public construction outside renewal areas, little progress has
been made in this direction through either direct or voluntary
cooperation.
BASIC ORGANIZATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
We are not mere purveyors of real estate.
of cities.
We are builders
And we must bend every effort to make sure that what
we build will become an esthetic as well as functional asset to
our cities. There is one area where all of us can place greater
emphasis. This is design -- by design
mean urban design,
urban planning, and good architecture.
Each developer in an urban renewal area is required by the
disposition documents and the urban renewal plan to submit to design
review.
This review is
based largely on material developed by the plan-
ning and design staff.
The planning and design division in the BRA is one of four
(planning and design, transportation and engineering,
renewal, and
operations) constituting central resources under the Development
Administrator and the five-man Authority.
Its
functions range from
graphics, model building, photography, to general planning design.
The last has a staff of thirty headed by the Director of Design Review.
Boston has been divided up into ten General Neighborhood Renewal
Plan areas ranging in size from sixty acres (Government Center) to over
-32.
six hundred (South End).
Each has a project director, most of whom are
lawyers or administrators, who is responsible for the planning in that
area.
Each project director has available the resources of the central
staff.
In addition, key persons are assigned from the central staff to
each project.
Thus each project has a chief designer as well as
assigned planning, transportation, engineering, and legal resources.
During the execution phase, several resources,1somb'of which
have a bearing on design criteria, provide inputs to the plan. These
include the general plan, a wide range of consultant studies, plans by
other agencies, and a process of community participation
given the title of "planning with people."
--
in Boston
Here the BRA attempts to
"bridge the gap between planner and citizen" by seeking the views and
trying to win the support of locally responsible groups.
In neighbor-
hoods this has involved a large number of citizen groups.
In the case
of the Waterfront, a substantial contribution was made by the Chamber
of Commerce.
Frequently these groups express a concern for the site
planning and architectural character of the projects in their areas.20
After official approval of projects by appropriate government
agencies and the city council, and development of additional rough
plans for the particular parcels, four processes are undertaken:
acquisition, relocation, demolition, and site preparation.
starting about one year before a site is
tised.
to be ready, it
Concurrently,
w-ill be adver.
Any developer may then submit a letter of interest and, with a
$50 deposit, get a "developer kit" for the particular parcel or set of
parcels in which he is
interested.
The advertisement may contain such
-33-
things as location, size, maximum height, floor area ratio, and price
per square foot.
The developer kit is an assemblage of the various factors that
will affect the development of the particular site.
Among its contents
are the policies of the BRA for disposition; guides to the development
and design; guides to other approvals, codes and ordinances; and various
maps and photographs.
Of particular relevance to design and design
review are the sections on design and the photographs and drawings.
The sections on design outline relevant excerpts from the
Urban Renewal Plan, particular design objectives for the site, the
design review process, and the general design policy in
urban renewal.
21
The design objectives for particular parcels and their subdivisions may
be developed from further studies of the site by the staff after the
passing of the urban renewal plan and as the projects progress.
These
are considered especially important for purposes of coordinating adjacent parcels as they are disposed.
These studies are in turn a major
portion of the basis for the review.
The Planning and Design Objectives for housing parcels
contains
sections on use objectives, site design, and building and unit design.
Included are the relation to the surrounding area such as adjacent
community facilities; recommended points of vehicular and pedestrian
access; site amenity, such as existing physical features, open spaces,
parking,
on-site circulation,
functions.
and landscaping; and standards for service
Building and unit design may mention such things as grouping
and general type (elevator, walkup, -row, duplex).
The maps and photographs include the basic site information
needed for development, such as topography, services, etc.; and abstract
diagrams, usually showing the hoped-for massing and circulation patterns.
The latter are developed from design studies of building prototypes
dones by the BRA staff.
Their own designs are not included because
their concern is simply to explore possibilities and to have backup
material to demonstrate the design feasibility of particular solutions.
By using only diagrams, it is felt that greater flexibility and freedom
is given the-2iltimate designer, avoiding undue influence over design.
The controls governing the Government Center are much more specific,
showing maximum and minimum limits on height, and locations for
pedestrian easements through buildings.. (See drawing, p.98 )
Where there is more than one developer for a particular parcel,
they are screened on the basis of financial ability, experience, and
architectural credentials.
Government Center Parcel
Making this explicit, for example, the
7 documents state:
(1)
Design - The architectural work must be of a
quality which meets the high standards of design excellence
which have been established and maintained for Government Center.
(2)
Financial Strength - Urban renewal projects have
frequently suffered delays because of inadequate financial resources of developers.
Prospective developers will, therefore,
be required to make a showing thnt they have the financial resources necessary to carry out the proposal.
(3)
Experience - The developer, contractor, and archi-
tect should have experience in the construction of buildings of
comparable size and importance.
The developer must sign a letter saying that he will use the
particular architect throughout the project unless permission to change
architects is granted by the agency.
-35-
If several strong teams present themselves, the agency may
conduct a limited competition.
is fixed.
Committee.
As in other cases, the cost of land
The jury is chaired by a member of the Design Advisory
An expert in the particular building type, other archi-
tects, and prominent lay persons may be included in-its membership.
Design review of proposals is then instituted for the following
stated purposes:
to assure they satisfy the criteria set for the par-.
ticular parcel; to assure that further development of plans and working
drawings is
in substantial conformance with the design proposal; to
assure that refinements, further improvements, and new details developed
in the later design stages continue to conform to the objectives for the
parcel; to assure coordination of the developer's proposal with the
improvefuents scheduled on contiguous parcels or contiguous public
rights-of-way; and to assist where possible the developer and his architect in gaining approvals of city agencies.
The submission requirements are in four stages, which follow
the usual steps in the architectural development of a building.
schematic plans are presented.
First,
These may be highly informal, such as
sketches on yellow tracing paper and chip board block models.
This is
followed by a presentation of preliminary plans giving a more complete
idea of the visual appearance of the project.
The third step or "final preliminary" is a complete presentation
which forms the basis of the design staff's recommendation for or
against disposition.
The project is then submitted to the board through
the Development Administrator.
The submission requirements are generally
given in detail"including the scale of drawings, desired plans, elevations,
-36-
sections, typical horizontal and vertical wall sections, a perspective,
and other drawings or models necessary to understand the proposal.
It
is required that these indicate proposed materials for the site,
exterior of building, and public spaces.
Also required is an outline
specifications and preliminary schematics of art proposals.
The fourth submission consists of final working drawings,
specifications, and samples of materials and colors.
for conformance with the final preliminaries.
These are checked
The closing on the dis-
position does not take place until working drawings have been examined.
It is advised that any important changes in the approach of the
redeveloper and his architect at any stage should be reviewed with the
review staff before substantial expenditures of time and money are made.
If the Authority does not approve the formal submissions, it notifies
the developer and his architect in writing, setting forth in detail any
grounds for disapproval.
In this process, the chief project designer becomes a kind of
quasi-administrator-designer,
getting all the political, legal, and
engineering inputs; and, in his dialogue with others, providing the
design inputs.
To aid him in design studies and review, the rest of
the staff may form temporary task forces.
Supplementing the design staff is the Design Advisory Committee
consisting of the City's "most outstanding architects."
Members of
this committee now include Hugh Stubbins, FAIA, Vice-President of the
American Institute of Architects, and Chairman of the Design Advisory
Committee; Pietro Belluschi, FAIA, past Dean of the School of Archi-.
tecture and Planning at M.I.T.; Jose Luis Sert, Dean of the Graduate
-37-
School of Design at Harvard University; Lawrence Andersenig, Dean of the
School of Architecture and Planning at M.I.T.; and Nelson Aldrich,
principal of the firm of Campbell, Aldrich, and Nulty.
It
is intended
that they provide independent and objective advice in making the design
judgments involved in the design review process.
SUMARY
Boston's renewal program covers large areas of the city.
The
basic design strategy emphasizes the concept of the "Capital Web" as an
efficient way of directing capital investment.
It is in part an attempt
to structure the important elements of visual communication, but falls
short of including many of the visually, historically, and socially
significant parts of the city.
Present law does not provide for review of either public or
private construction outside renewal areas.
The plan suggests its
extension through either direct control or voluntary cooperation.
Schools, recreation, and street furniture are considered particularly
important types of public construction where standards are needed.
The administration of the urban renewal areas is
decentralized
but draws on the resources of the central staff for design and other inputs.
Those design inputs that are relevant to particular parcels are
put together in a kit that is then made available to prospective redevelopers.
Design, along with financial strength and experience, is
considered an important criterion in the selection of the developer team.
Review is outlined as taking place in four submissions.
It is advised
that important changes in approach in plans be examined by the staff
-38-
before substantial aiounts of time and money are expended.
tion is
Disposi.
held off until plans are approved.
The approach basically fits that of Montgomery.
elaborated further in the following chapter.
-39-
This will be
CHAPTER IV:
ELEMENTS OF THE REVIEM
PROCESS
The principle elements of the review process include the design
objectives and controls, staff liaison, and the Design Advisory Committee.
The following sections discuss how each of these has been structured to
support the BRA design goals.
This includes bringing out their mode of
operation, the kinds of design criteria, and the problems of each.
DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CONTROIS
The design objectives and controls set forth in the plans and
disposition documents constitute the explicit basis for design review.
The design objectives were defined earlier as the purposes toward which
sets of actions shaping the sensuous environment are directed.
Ideally
these objectives are reflected in the parcelization of the land, the
land uses, the circulation system, and the other controls and restrictions on a particular site.
Controls are defined as specified limitations on design, such
as specific heights, setbacks, densities, and uses of particular materials, which are mandatory.
Different from objectives, they obscure the
underlying purposes which they attempt to achieve.
The contents of the objectives and controls may follow an open,
flexible mode.
These might specify general design criteria such as
buildings achieving a continuity of scale between themselves and
historictly significant buildings.
Or they may be tight, specifying
-40-
that buildings should be compatible in scale and material with, say,
the granite wharf building, shall have no setbacks, and shall not
exceed certain maximum and minimum heights.
In renewal, the objectives and controls themselves may be subject to change.
Those which are in the renewal plans are the most
difficult to alter because of their legal nature and the number of
agencies and public bodies required for approval.
Those which are in
the disposition documents may be highly fluid, requiring only the local
agency's approval.
In the design process approach outlined by Montgomery, the
Urban Renewal Plan sets forth the design objectives and controls.
These are based on an exploration of design potentials and the strategy
for design actions.
The plan follows the open or flexible mode rather
than building in tight design.
In his discussion he gives examples of
height limits and other zoning type restrictions in past projects which
failed to distinguish between planning controls and design or development controls. 2 2
In addition, the agency prepares design plans in an incremental
but continuous fashion to serve as a basis for redevelopment.
may be tight or open.
These
The combination of "design plan" and urban
renewal plan serves as a miniature "constitution" or yardstick against
which proposals are measured.
The effect is
to rely heavily on review.
The BRA does not adhere strictly to the open or flexible
approach.
This in part may be explained by the relative autonomy
exercised by the staff assigned to each of the project areas and the
level of sophistication reached at various points in the agency's history.
.. 41..
In some cases, however, the tightness is built into the plans and
disposition documents for strategic reasons.
examples of tight controls in
The following are some
the urban renewal plans.
The Waterfront and Washington Park plans have maximum height
restrictions on all sites.
these.
Most of the parcels in the South End have
The last, however, also has several which are subject to
Authority approval for both height and even density.
The Government Center has been and continues to be the most
restrictive.
Here the plans contain strict limitations on maximum and
minimum height, encourage a minimum setback from the street, and in
places specify the size and location of arcades and pedestrian easements,
These are usualy further defined in the disposition documents.
Signs and lighting are tightly controlled in all project areas.
Signs are limited to non-animated and non-flashing types, identifying
only the establishment and the nature of its products.
These are to be
integrated architecturally with the structure they identify.
project above the roof line.
building more than 24 inches.
None can
None shall project beyond the face of the
The size, location, and number are sub-
ject to the approval of the Authority as are any exceptions to the other
restrictions. 2 3
Lighting is limited to certain areas with no floodlight-
ing of buildings or streets permitted.
Cases can be found where projects have exceeded the restrictions
found in the plans.
However, some general reasons have been suggested
for the use of tight restrictions.
One is to avoid pressure from developers to exceed the restric.
tions.
Related to this is the concern over the legal relationship
-42.
between design review and zoning,
a point of debate within the staff.
The most ardent supporters of the tCapital Web" concept, design plan,
and design review would like to minimize the fixed zoning type controls,
particularly in areas closely associated with the Capital Web.
Others
express concern over the legal problem of giving arbitrary administra-
tive control to the BRA on renewal sites.
attack by adjacent property owners.
This could be subject to
It also focuses great pressure on
the design staff to give preferential treatment.
As was clear from
interviews, many projects exceeding zoning or design plan restrictions
can be presented for the best of aesthetic reasons on the part of the
developer and his architect.
One of the chief project designers suggested a second reason
for the use of tight objectives and controls, difficult to substantiate:
allow tradeoffs in the process of bargaining.
In the plans that are
being developed by Karl Koch for the Lewis Wharf area of the waterfront,
differences have developed over the addition of floors, the roof form,
and a cupola on the rehabilitated granite structure, and whether to
allow the construction of a 221(d)3 tower on Atlantic Avenue.
Koch
would like to add two floors of apartments along the full length of
the old building, parts of which are now six stories and others four.
The cupola, which he claims could be found on historic drawings, would
house the mechanical equipment for the elevators and air conditioning.
The renewal plan and disposition documents call for lower structures on
the avenue.
In addition, the basic BRA philosophy for rehabilitation is
to maintain the basic shell of old buildings.
The original wharf
building contained only four floors and no cupola.
Thus the BRA woul4g
like to remove those parts of the building which are above four floors.
One compromise has been the development of a kind of Mansard roof.
Another suggested as perhaps an acceptable tradedff would be to allow
apartments created by an additional floor in the Wharf building to be
part and reason for the tower on the avenue.
Most of the tight restrictions are based on design considerations rather than this kind of strategic maneuvering.
Thus the restric-
tions being placed on ParceL2 of the Government Center, which lies
between the tower of the Federal Office Building and Rudolph's State
Service Center, are the result of careful three-dimensional studies by
the staff later reviewed by the Design Advisory Committee.
Such
restrictions provide a specific basis for review, allow for the participation of several developers, and avoid some of the problems of arbitrary preference.
One other reason for height restrictions can be found in Roxbury.
The BRA had at one time proposed a series of towers along the newly.
created boulevard.
This proposal was rejected by the community in
favor of lower structures.
It was important to them that this expecta-
tion and desire be fixed in the plan.
In general the BRA attempts to state explicitly the important
design considerations in a way that is operational and consistent without
impinging on the creative talents of the ultimate designers.24
Each plan
has a general section on design goals, either as part of planning and
design objectives or separately stated.
In addition, design objectives
for each parcel may be found in later sections.
-44.
The whole set may be elaborated in a number of statements or
in some cases covered by only one or two general statements.
they appear to include statements of two kinds.
Usually
Most are directed '
toward the organization or form of perceptual elements.
Less defined
are the non-form objectives and implications of design expression which
occasionally appear in the criticism of projects.
Of the first kind, the factors one might find emphasized include visibility, materials, scale, massing, plan form, and the
structure of activity. In an apparent attempt to strengthen the visual
structure, continuity, comfort, and diversity of the Waterfront, for
example,
one finds such form-statement objectives as: 25
To establish an orderly sequence and hierarchy of open
spaces and views for both the pedestrian and the motorist.
To create an unobstructed visual channel from the Old
State House and Washington and State Streets down to Long Wharf
and the harbor beyond.
To maintain the finger-like outline of the wharves.
To establish at the foot of State Street a vehicular-
free focal point of converging pedestrian ways and down-harbor
views.
To establish a continuity of scale between the existing
North End residential community and the new development
To establish a relationship . . . which provides maximum
protection to the pedestrian during unfavorable weather condi-
tions.
To establish an active urban character for the area by
the intensive utilization of land 'and by the mixing of compatible land uses.
For the particular parcels, the goals almost always relate to
form and performance qualities.
In the case of Lewis Wharf, the Plan
calls for a "diverse but compatible mixture of uses," and the development
-45-
of'"rows of structures of a moderate height running parallel to the
long-massive granite structures.n2 6
The objectives for the Castle
Square 221(d)3 housing in the South End state that the development
"shall be compatible with existing row housing in the South End and
the community of which it is a part," and more specifically, "a maximum
number of larger sized dwelling units shall have access to private outdoor space either on the ground or on balconies.it27
The Urban Renewal Manual states that "no satisfactory approach
for specifying architectural quality exists.112 8
been made in the BRA renewal plans.
Various attempts have
The South End Plan simply states,
for example, that one of the main objectives is to "obtain superior
architectural and esth'tic quality in the new public and private
buildings and open spaces."
The Government Center Plan makes the most complete statement..
"The individual developer' s proposals," it
says, "will be reviewed in
terms of its contribution to the environment, its care for the assets
and community values of historical Boston, and the permanence of renewal
objectives in terms of aesthetic expression, itilitarian arrangement, and
structural soundness."
In addition, the Plan states the developer
should consider the following principles, which again relate to form
qualities:
29
a.
The best modern architectural standards for
natural and artificial lighting, acoustics, and mechanical
plant should be utilized as well as sensitive external expression of these factors . . .
b.
Experimentation in the arrangement of uses in a
single architectural complex . . .
c.
harmonize,
New and rehabilitated buildings . . . should
not only with others sharing the same streets or
open spaces, but with surrounding older parts of downtown
Boston. Particular note should be taken of the use of curtain
walling materials and architectural rhythm and detail of wall
openings, relating to dominant local architectural traditions
of masonry materials and complex and careful scales of wall
openings.
d.
All parapets and roof-top structures should be
well organized so as to present an attractive appearance from
all points of view, including the view from higher buildings.
Among the special and fundamental prinoiples it
states that
the City Hall should be visually dominant and artistically unique in
the setting provided by a dignified building enclosure of simple roofline, similar or harmonious materials,
and similar scale of facade
treatment.
Even though the interpretation of any of the above objectives
may at times be difficult, the BRA finds them useful in making explicit
the broad responsibility it has undertaken in review.
Though more ab-
stract issues of architectural expression are occasionally brought out,
the most effective and frequent criticisms usually relate to such form
and performance goals as visibility, continuity scale, and functional
efficiency.
As will be seen in the examples of the following sections,
the BRA and the Design Advisory Committee essentially review to all
levels of any presentation, including both sensuous and functional
design.
Usually conflict will frequently be seen to focus on the
validity of an objective in a particular case as much as its interpretation.
Summary
The design objectives and controls used by the BRA do not follow
completely the open or flexible mode.
The reasons suggested include
avoiding arbitrary preferences, pressure from developers, tradeoffs,
the desire to fix expectations, and allowing participation by many
developers within a unified framework.
In general an attempt is made to state explicitly all important
design criteria in a way that is operational and consistent.
In
practice these are applied very broadly, though certain form and per.
formance criteria are emphasized.
LIAISON
The functions of liaison outlined by the Urban Renewal Manual
include providing information services, assistance with changes and
modifications, and follow up.
Viewed as part of the design process,
liaison can beeseen as a key element, linking and providing interchange
and feedback between the design plan and the developer.
It
is
here
that the most frequent and intensive contact exists between the BRA on
the one hand and the developers and their architects on the other.
The
importance attached to it can be observed easily by the proportion of
staff designer time it receives.
The strategy is essentially designed to accelerate the pace of
30
project development by avoiding bottlenecks over design or other issues
and assuring the implementation of design objectives.
This generally
involves frequent and informal contact and considerable flexibility in
meeting and accepting new conditions as they are presented.
The process of breaking down bottlenecks can be viewed as the
kind of gap-bridging device described by Montgomery.
In the few cases
where liaison has partially or wholly broken down, it has resulted in
considerable costs in developer design time, construction schedule, and
emotional investment.
The case of the public housing authority (see p.
illustrates the only case discovered of a total breakdown.
A smaller
but more frequent type of breakdown occurs where architects delay in
showing concepts which they are developing or continue to modify those
which have been developed but which essentially have been rejected, in
the hope that they will eventually be more acceptable at a later stage
of development.
Here much depends on an assessment by the architect
of the staff's commitment to particular objectives.
However, the
attempt to persuade with a fait accompli appears to be riskier than the
process of bartering, and it is questionable whether it has been success.
ful under any circumstances.
Tufts New England Medical Center represents
one project where the architect has been struggling with this issue.
The process of resolving bottlenecks over design and other issues
results, according to one point of view, in a description of staff liai.
son as a trouble shooting operation.
The staff has a number of services
to offer which strengthen its position in implementing the design objec.
tives.
These are further backed up by the Design Advisory Committee and
the power to hold up disposition until the staff is satisfied with a
given proposal. Among its services are providing assistance in getting
approvals and cooperation from other agencies, providing assistance with
design modification and decisions, making available large resources of
information, and providing support before the Design Advisory Committee
as outlined in the following section.
Support in getting financing, particularly in getting FHA.
approval, is frequently a critical factor in the viability of a project.
Much staff time in residential areas is spent gaining design approval
from the FHA.
This can be used as one technique to discourage unwanted
-49..
development, particularly outside renewal areas.
Thus Logue, according
to the Boston Globe, registered his disapproval with the FHA for the
221(d)3 project he opposed for Pier 2 on the Waterfront.
Assistance is frequently needed in getting approval from other
city agencies, particularly the Public Works Commission.
One example
is the realignment of Circuit Street in Washington Park to work better
for a particular proposal made by the architect for a 221(d)3 housing
project.3 1
If the BRA feels that the particular design solution is
questibnable and considerable energy and political effort would be
involved, the architect may find himself in a difficult position.
Thus,
in the case of the Tufts New England Medical Center, the BRA, according
to the architect, has expressed reluctance over supporting the approvals
that would be required to allow for a substantial air rights development
over Washington Street.
The importance of a command of information can be illustrated
again by the Waterfront Development Corporation's proposal for a tower
on Atlantic Avenue.
In the process of discussions at the architect's
office, the point came out that studies are or will be made of the
adjacent area in the North End.
If these show a very high development
potential and a likelihood that high structures will be going up in this
area,
then the -proposal for the tower might be shown to be more in
harmony with the adjacent area than the renewal plan assumptions and
associated objectives indicate.
As will be pointed out in later sections, the staff frequently
provides assistance with changes and modifications to meet design
standards.
This may involve directly doing the redesign themselves of
critical elements where the architect is weak or making general recom-
mendations on what kinds of things need further study.
made to be positive in
An effort is
finding the proper direction rather than to be
purely critical of what has been done.
The flexibility that is provided by the plan at times allows
tradeoffs which do not seriously affect the major design objectives.
A simple example is the permission being given to the Washington Park
shopping center to construct a prominent pylon sigh on the corner
because of the severe sign restrictions elsewhere and the obscure
location of some of the shops to meet certain design objectives.
Though the criteria used generally reflect the plan, the flexi.bility that exists in the liaison and review process and the feedback
from project to plan objectives can also be brought out by the Waterfront project.
Though the tower solution is in conflict with the plan,
and the mutual discussion over the possibility that the assumptions made
by the plan were wrong may well lead to acceptance of the project.
Some
of the proplems in providing this kind of flexibility have already been
noted; for example, the fact that developers then put considerable
pressure on the BRA for increasing densities and the legal problems
relating to zoning. From the architect's standpoint one of the problems
has been maintaining continuity because of changes in personnel.
The
danger is that where agreement with the responsible staff person may have
been reached at one point in time, a new person may present a new view.
point on decisions that have already been reached. Most of the project
designers are young, have low salaries, and do not appear to stay with
the BRA for long periods of time.
Though those architects interviewed
expressed general satisfaction with the quality of the personnel, they
did show concern about changes from one person to the next and about
the long-run quality of the staff should Logue and Collins depart.
Through observations and discussions with the staff, it appears
that form and performance criteria are those emphasized.
Thus, in
Washington Park the objective of creating community "seams" out of the
major boulevards, with visual and activity focal points, is found to be
implemented by the staff in encouraging site planners to create these
effects.
In the conversations observed over the Waterfront project,
the need to study the scale and materials of the new project in relation
to the street and adjacent historical buildings was brought out.
Only one case of a major post-construction follow-up effort
exists.
The lack of cases appears to be more the result of the need
or state of completion of the various projects than the lack of diligence.
The case that has occurred was a rather thorough review of the
Academy Homes project, including plans and photographs of various
conditions considered objectionable.
These were sent to the developer,
who has agreed to make improvements at considerable expense to himself.
Summary
Staff liaison can be seen as a key element linking and providing
interchange between the design plan and the developer.
Its major
functions are to speed project development and, more importantly,
impose design objectives.
The design objectives used generally reflect
those of the renewal plans.
The staff has a number of services to offer which help the
developer and ease the process of implementing design objectives.
-52-
These include providing assistance in getting approvals and cooperation
from other agencies, providing assistance with design modification and
decisions, making available large resources of information, and pro-
viding support before the Design Advisory Committee.
They are further
backed up by the DAC and the power of the BRA to withhold disposition.
Liaison is most effective where contact is continuous and
informal.
The major difficulties have occurred where liaison with
developers and architects has broken down.
A present and future diffi-
culty in the system is providing staff continuity.
DESIGN ADVISORY C01%fITTEE
According to the Urban Renewal Manual on design review, the
manifest function of the Design Advisory Committee (DAC)
the architectural merits of developer proposals.
is
to pass on
However, from the
historical conditions of its inception and throughout its development
it has tended to play a much broader role in Boston.
The DAC grew out of the Architectural Advisory Committee
appointed by the Boston Planning Board from nominees of the Boston
Society of Architects and the Massachusetts Association of Architects
in 1953 to oversee the development of the Government Center.
The AAC
was created, according to one source, because the members of the planning
board had conservative views on architecture and were thus "suspicious
of the modernist tendencies of the consultants."3 2
(These included
Adams, Howard & Greeley, Consultants, in association with Anderson,
Beckwith and Haible; Sasaki, Walker & Associates; Kevin Iynch; John R.
Myer; and Paul D. Spreiregen.)
The major political controversy that
developed during the planning stages of the project involved the location
of the City Hall or another location not within the Government Center.
-53-
The DAC and others then took public stands in
Federal Office Building location.
esced.
favor of the present
The federal bureaucrats then acqui-
After the arrivals of Logue and I. M. Pei, who was commissioned
to restudy the Government Center Plan created by the earlier consultants,
the DAC continued to consult informally with the BRA as this project
developed.
As other projects began to reach the execution phase, a need
was seen to expand the role of the DAC.
suggested by David Crane for defining its
The following functions were
future: 3
4
A.
Advice and guidance on the coordination of staff,
design consultant, and private cooperating agenciest arrangements
relative to architectural and design matters.
This would involve
* . help in formulating objectives andpoprocedures, recommending
the architect or consultants, and participating in design review
as contracts progressed. (Examples include schools, street
furnishing, and recreation.)
B.
Review and criticism of paramount elements of
civic architecture, in which the question is less an adjutication
between competing developers than the rendering of civic service
in the public interest. (Examples: City Hall, English High
School campus, rehabilitation of Copley Square.)
C.
Advising the staff on the development of standards
and procedures for the design aspects of land disposition, and
the surveillance of design execution. Due to the varying nature
of competitive submissions, several methods of design judgment
may be used as appropriate.
1.
2.
3.
Staff review.
Design Advisory Committee and staff review.
Paid jury chaired by a committee member,
with staff review.
D.
Sponsoring of better communications and educational
programs to foster understanding of the renewal process.
Beyond
the functions of the Committee, . . . good offices are needed
to establish two other types of groups.
1.
A committee of Greater Boston area profes-
sional designers able to volunteer services
in rehabilitation and other community
relations.
2.
A city-wide citizens leadership group able
to take public positions on design where it
is
needed.
In a meeting discussing these functions, the DAC expressed the
desire that the committee should perform as a "neutral tempering body"
to which the BRA and cooperating agencies might refer for design opinion
and decisions.
The committee was to be and has been self-perpetuating,
with reappointments or replacements being recommended to the local AIA
chapter for confirmation.
No defined terms of office have been
established.
Sections A, B, and C were accepted with minor revisions by the
committee.
Section D was considered "beyond the scope of the committee"
at that time.
This function in part has been taken on by the Boston
College Seminars and the Boston Society of Architects Civic Design
Committee.
From a broader perspective,
however, communication and
education as well as the taking of public positions on design issues
have been among the major roles played by the committee.
Interviews with Dean Anderson and Pietro Belluschi brought out
two kinds of activity in which the DAC participates and over which
there is some concern.
The first essentially embodies Sections A, B,
and C, characterized by the rendering of expert opinion on design issues.
The second concept, brought out by D, shows the DAC as a political
pressure group not only in relation to the public and the developers,
but also within the BRA and its staff.
Involved are such things as the
taking of public stands, using the committee to influence Logue or other
staff personnel who may be concerned more abont economy and expediency,
and various forms of the kind of adjudication they once expressed a
desire to avoid.
-55-
a.
Rendering Expert Opinion
The DAC has participated extensively in the making of
various policy decisions, in
the formulating and continued review of
competitions and important civic structures, and in the routine
scrutinizing of developer proposals.
Methods of architect selection, disposition policies,
and design controls are some of the policy issues that have been fre-
quently on the agenda.
The discussions of architect selection,
particularly for public buildings, reviewed the various -methods proposed by James Lawrence, a member of the Boston Society of Architects
Civic Design Committee.
These particularly examined various forms of
competition such as those used in California.3 5
Examples of discussions concerning disposition policies
include the examination of alternatives for Washington Park projects
in the vicinity of the shopping center. According to the meeting
minutes, the committee "expressed concern about the design implication"
of separating these projects under four different developer architect
teams."
The committee then made two suggestions.
One, that the BIRA
staff "work up an overall scheme for the entire area, and have the
individual developers bid on the BRA scheme!" the. other, that "one
architect be commissioned to design the entire area, under contract
either to the Authority or to the combination of separate developers."3 6
Both these suggestions were made on the assumption that visual conti-.
nuity, unity of design, and functional integration were prime considera-
tions for the closely related parcels.
-56-
The committee then went on to say:
If the policy of separation of sites must be maintained,
the committee feels that the only way to be reasonably certain
of unity of design is to set forth rigid controls within the
disposition agreements insofar as height, building materials,
roof shapes, and relation to the -street is concerned. 37
The controls that were used were diagrammatic and not rigid.
Instead,
the architects were brought together in meetings to coordinate their
proposals.
In the Government Center other examples can be found of
the committee-s review of various staff and consultant proposals.
Kallman and McKinnel's studies for the landscaping of Cambridge Street
and the Government Center plaza have been brought up for frequent discussion and advice from the committee.
The staff has also brought up
such things as staff proposals for the proportions of the mall between
the Federal Office Building and the State Service Center, and design
objectives for Parcel
7.
In the latter case, for example,
the minutes
state:38
On the matter of scale, they felt the building should
develop a character more appropriate for the Government Center
Plaza, and express this character on both faces of the building
with no specific attempt to seek compatibility with the buildings on the Blackstone Block. However, they did endorse visual
penetration at the ground floor. . . . The Committee favored
statements thit would influence the architect to use masonry
materials instead of metal curtain walls.
In interviews, some concern was expressed over the lack
of DAC involvement in policy decisions.
they are involved to some extent.
The above examples show that
However, their feeling was that they
should be involved in broader issues in the early planning stages of
the renewal plans where major design decisions are also made.
In the review of developer proposals, committee time is
limited so that it is impossible to review every project in detail.
-57-
Perhaps because of its
as long as possible.
limited time,
the agenda is
generally left open
Review appears to have been instituted generally
at times of crisis, or where major design issues have been raised, or
in the development of what are considered significant projects.
Although all projects have gone through staff review,
some have not gone through review by the DAC.
The Development Corpora-
tion of America, for example, states that none of its projects have been
before the committee.
It rather characterizes its relationship with the
BRA as a continuous effort in cooperation with the staff. Many of those
which do come up appear to do so repeatedly.
Examples include the
Waterfront Development Corporation proposal for Lewis Wharf which is
challenging the urban renewal design objectives, the public housing
proposal for Walnut Square which had reached a design impasse, and the
Castle Square 821(d)3 housing development.
The Castle Square project came before the Committee a
number of times apparently because it represented a difficult design
situation and is considered an important project.
the architect's plans were criticized severely.
In the summer of 1963
The minutes state,
"Its scale was inhuman, its general feeling cold and reminiscent of the
worst in housing projects."
The project was presented again at a later
stage of development in the fall.
Then the criticism ranged from the
site planning, particularly the enclosure of two. and four-story buildings
by a periferal group of higher buildings, to the density, which put too
many people and too many cars on the site.
By the following January the
site planning and design were considered greatly improved.
It is the intent of the design staff that most or even
all projects go before the committee in both the early and later stages
of their development.
With meetings held to one two-hour session per
month and an average of perhaps three presentations per meeting, this
will be nearly impossible.
In addition, it aggravates the problem of
presenting projects and supporting information adequately for the making
of what may frequently be important decisions.
b.
Applying Political Pressure
The line between the rendering of professional opinion
and playing an advocate role between competing values is fine but important.
Though wealthy in talent and well respected,the design staff
of the BRA would find their job much more difficult without the prestige of the DAC.
This prestige is available not only to the staff
but to architects who may have design objectives they would like recog-
nized by their own clients or accepted by the BRA staff, or even to
developers who question the design judgment of their architects.
Perhaps the most important yet most difficult-to-measure
effect of this prestige is to make possible general acceptance by the
public and by architects of the broad design controls and procedures
that have been established.
At the individual project scale, the lending
of prestige to a point of view is much more apparent.
The following
examples show a case where the DAC was used to influence another staff
section, one where it was used to influence another public agency, one
where it
it
was used by an architect to influence his client, and one where
was used by an architect to influence the BRA design staff.
-59-
In October of 1965 the Transportation Division of the
BRA made proposals for a road connection between Congress Street and
Commercial Street, passing through what had been intended to be a
This was to handle a pro-
pedestrian plaza in front of Faneuil Hall.
jected heavy traffic load in the area, and may in fact, according to
some, be unavoidable at some future date.
The DAC examined this
proposal and, according to the minutes, "were vehement in their oppo-
sition to it.
They felt it essential that the area in front of
Faneuil Hall be developed as a pedestrian space if the proper relation-
ship between Faneuil Hall, the City Hall, and the Market buildings is
to be maintained."
For the present the proposal has been tabled.
In October of 1964 the DAC was asked to review two
alternative proposals for the design of Copley Square.
One consisted
of a plan prepared essentially by the Back Bay Association and the BRA,
and the other was a proposal by the Commissioner of Public Works.
The
domments from this meeting were to be used in a meeting with the Mayor
in order to reach an agreement with the BRA,
and the Commissioner.
the Back Bay Association,
Both schemes showed the removal of the Huntington
Avenue diagonal through the square.
The Commissioner's scheme, however,
proposed a narrow through street in front of the church and various
other road widenings.
The long letter that resulted commented on the
historic importance of the site, commended the elimination of Huntington
Avenue, pointed out some traffic problems, and supported the concept of
a single church and plaza.
In September of 1963 Paul Rudolph, as architect for the
State Service Center building, requested committee support for his
.60.
proposed treatment of the exterior concrete.
The meeting minutes
state that "after a brief discussion the Committee felt that it was
not within their province, nor was it their desire to comment upon the
proposed technique."
However, in a letter which followed, it was
pointed out that the materials and finishes for a building are naturally
an integral part of the building concept, and "the designing architects
have the best answer to this question."
In February of 1965, Kallman and McKinnel presented their
proposal for the major parking structure in
the Government Center..
Their proposal resulted in the creation of a triangular space on New
Chardon Street.
One side of the triangle consists of a spiral ramp or
drum connecting the street and the street facade of the building.
David
Crane and the chief project designer for the Government Center favored
no setback along the street because of the redundancy of this space and
the other major spaces in the area.
In the meeting that followed, one
of the members agreed with Crane and another supported the idea that
the enclosed drum and building setback created more interest in terms
of scale and variety.
This space still exists in the plans.
Because the committee is advisory to the BRA, it usually
takes no formal action on a particular project.
does appear to reach a consensus.
However, it usually
Its criticisms then are expressed
where appropriate in letters prepared by the staff to the architect
developer team.
Competitions, which according to the disposition officer 3 9
are in disfavor as a method of selecting private developers, appear to
have been used as a device to lend prestige to a particular design and
avoid public criticism of the BRA. As was pointed out in Chapter III,
these are chaired by a member of the committee and usually include an
expert in
the particular building type, other architects, and one or
more lay members.
The most recent case is
the selection of Cabot Cabot
& Forbes to build a tower in the Government Center through a competition,
after their original selection had been criticized for favoritism.
In the carrying out of both its technical and political
roles, the DAC exercises a very broad range of criteria.
According to
Dean Anderson, no concrete attempt has been made to define their scope.
Although he feels that they frequently get involved in very picayune
matters, planning and development are such fluid processes that it is
dangerous to draw a definite line.
Thus in one case it is possible to
find them discussing the flashing for a housing project, in another the
relative merits of a swastika or single tower volume,
and in
another the
"eloquent expression of the human use of this wonderful site."0
Most
criticisms deal with the kinds of form ideas contained in the urban
renewal plans.
But, as in the last example, the committee occasionally
goes beyond these in search of some higher principles.
Beside the limitations on its time, the committee is
faced with problems of conflict of interest and what eventually becomes
a rather tedious kird of gratuitous service.
It will be seen in the
following chapter that there is a tendency on the part of some developers
to hire a few committee members in cases where zoning and design controls
on density and height are exceeded.
The line that is drawn appears to
be at participation in public jobs.
This particular problem is partly
offset by the vesting of final authority in the staff and the purely
advisory position of the committee.
-62.
The threat of tedium and boredom might be overcome through
more frequent rotation of members, including the enlistment of other local
designers and drawing on the national pool.
The frequency of replacements
and the proportion of non-locals could be balanced to provide continuity,
a full measure of prestigious members, and continued interest.
Summary
The Design Advisory Committee plays a broad role in the Boston
program.
It fulfills two important functions:
one, the rendering of
expert opinion, and two, the lending of its prestige and political support on design issues.
Though it has participated in a number of fine-
scale and intermediate-level policy decisions, these have usually been
limited to particular parcels and proposals.
It has not been fully used
for decisions over large-scale planning and design concepts.
Because of the limitations on its time, projects which are considered significant, raise important design issues, or pose crisis
situationshave been and probably will continue to be its major subjects
for review.
Other problems include conflict of interest and the tedious-
ness of continuous participation.
The design objectives and criteria it employs usually concentrate
on form ideas reflecting the objectives of the plan.
Occasionally they
bring up higher principles as to what constitutes higher levels of
architectural expression.
CHAPTER V:
REVIE
IN OPERATION
It was suggested earlier that different contexts would lead to
different modes of operation.
It is suggested that these may be impor-
tant factors in determining the degree of specificity and flexibility
of objectives and controls in a given project, and will affect the
agency's ability or desire to emphasize certain criteria, its ability
or desire to make concessions, and the kinds of strain put on the
system.
The contexts include contrasts between public and private
developers, design and other agency objectives, and strong and weak
market conditions.
One conclusion that comes out of this examination is
position given design by the BRA.
tiontphase where it is
the priority
This is most important in the disposi-
usually reflected in the choice of a developer-
architect team that is strong in design. If they are not, it has usually
meant delay until a suitable design solution has been achieved.
Other
conclusions follow.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPERS
a.
Public Developers
Other public agencies have several characteristics which
can lead to difficulties in the design review process.
These include
the superior power of eminent domain and the refusal to cooperate, and
differences in standards and objectives.
-64.
In addition, public developers
cannot be chosen on the basis of their architect and design experience.
This can pose problems even where good design is a stated common goal.
The following illustrates these points, drawing particularly on experiences with the Federal Office Building and the Boston Housing Authority.
Superior Power of Eminent Domain.
The Federal Office
Building, built by the General Services Administration, refused to be
subjected to review.
However, because of the timing of the project and
the personal ties that existed between Walter Gropius, its architect,
and I. M. Pei, who had been called to plan the total project, it was
possible to incorporate the massing that had been developed by Gropius
into the plan. Beyond this, the only contact between the BRA and the
architect has been to coordinate landscape development.
This involved
several meetings negotiating the location of trees and lighting, proposed by consultants, in order not to hide the entrance to the building.
Other meetings took place in reference to such items as curb gradings,
drainage locations, paving, and connections to the plaza.
The expressways and state government buildings are also
exempt from review.
Through excess condemnation,
and air rights development,
access right of ways,
expressways may pose difficult future prob.
lems in the design of land use and structure.
The State Office Building
lies across the street from the Federal Office Building, but is not part
of the renewal area.
pressure from the BRA,
For reasons undetermined, but probably due to
it
was subjected voluntarily to review.
The
result was to add a center mullion to the windows, braking down the
scale of the fenestration to a pattern more in consonance with the
buildings of the Government Center.
Some political pressure by the BRA and the city on the
state to coordinate the architects for what were to be three separate
buildings set the stage for Paul Rudolph to replace their designs with
his single "stake and tail" scheme.
Though acting only as consultant
to one of the architects, he was able to present in two coordination
meetings schemes which by their overpowering graphics and concepts made
any other approach insignificant and untenable.
Differences in Standards and Objectives.
In the under-
taking of thevarious projects, cooperation agreements are made with the
other city agencies and departments involved.
Among the cooperation
agreements that have been made is one between the BRA and the Public
Works Commission to develop standards for street and street furniture
design and one for the development of standards for recreation facilities.
Contracts to study street furniture have been made with separate
consultants,
areas.
one for the Goverrnment Center and the other for residential
Their efforts have in part been characterized by compromises
between the design standards of the BRA and the efficiency and maintenance standards of the engineers.
The BRA, for example, would have
liked to use incandescent andhidden source can lights in certain areas,
but the light efficiency of these is too low to be considered by the
Public Works Commission. Similarly, in street design the PC would like
to have all
through residential streets and a fixed minimum standard of
six cars per street-side parking bay, whereas the BRA would prefer some
cul de sacs and no minimum standard to allow for keeping trees.
Most of the proposed construction of city facilities has
not been through the review because of the inability of the city to get
-66.
its programs under way.
In an attempt to speed up the process of con-
struction of schools and public buildings, Mayor Collins is in the
process of attempting to establish a "Public Facilities Department"
which would take over responsibilities for site selection and construc-
tion.
This would deprive the City Council of a voice in the approval
of the sale or leasing of all city-owned property except park lands, and
, particularly remoVe site selection authority from the superintendent
of schools and the School Building Commission where it is now centered.
This new agency would be exempt from the civil service as is the BRA,
but what the relationship between them would be is not clear.
Common Design Goals.
Some of the other city buildings
such as the City Hall, police, and fire stations, which are in the
design stages or have already begun construction, have cooperated fully
with the design staff.
Described as atypical of the relations with
other agencies, the difficulties that have been encountered with the
Boston Housing Authority represent the hazards that exist even where
explicit goals are the same.
Low and moderate income housing have been singled out by
the BRA as being cases in which design quality is
especially important.
The Walnut Square housing project, being held up because of the archi.
tecture and site planning, illustrates (1) the importance of liaison
throughout the project development and what happens when the developer
interferes with this process, (2) the difficulties that ensue from the
failure of the architect to meet the form and performance standards of
the BRA, (3) the kinds of issues that are brought up in review, and
(4) the use of the DAC to arbitrate an issue.
The site is located adjacent to Egleston Square, which
in the General Plan lies on the Capital Wfeb and constitutes a node of
second level importance.
It is intended that the square eventually
become a small activity center with sh6pping and access to the MBTA.
A major design objective contained in the BRA disposition kit was to
place any higher structures on the corner of the lot near the square
in order to mark it
(See figures 1
and
physically and intensify the activity there.
7
.)
Performance standards included providing a
high proportion of large family units, private yards,
and access to the
outdoors.
Experiencing some difficulty in gathering information for
the site, the architect contacted the BRA.
He then picked up their kit
and in the process discussed the project with their design specialist in
housing.
When this contact was discovered by the housing authority, it
objected and stipulated that future meetings should be conducted through
the housing authority. From this point, direct and informal contact
between the architect and the BRA ceased.
During the summer the architect developed in what he felt
to be a logical manner a scheme that included a 20-story circular tower
located at the higher end of the site.
This violated the BRA site
diagram in both height and location of the mass.
After the housing
authority had accepted this solution, a meeting was arranged in early
February to present the project to the BRA staff.
Though review pro-
cedure rather than the project was discussed at the meeting, a letter
was sent to the housing authority from the BRA stating that the project
did not satisfy the renewal objectives and controls contained in the
-68..
plan and disposition documents, and that it contained in addition
internal problems which made it unacceptable to Design Review.
The
outline of criticisms then included sections on renewal plan objectives,
site plan, space and sca'lerelationships,
housing, the circular tower,
the low rise structures, and recommendations.
The following are high-
lights from these sections.4 1
A high rise tower for the elderly should logically be
placed close to the IMBTA station and commercial facilities . . .
for convenience of the elderly. Lower height structures with
family units should be placed on the eastern portion of the site
to blend in with the scale and character of the existing housing.
One parking area of 13 cars (. . . in conflict with the
zoning requirements) and a driveway separates the proposed housing for the elderly on the eastern part of the site from the
family housing on the western portion.,
Wrapping the two- and three-story structures around the
20-story tower creates problems of scale, access, light and air
and on the whole unsatisfactory spaces.
The placement of the
three rectangular family units on the western portion of the
site bears little visual relatedness to the elderly housing to
the east and results in a lack of cohesion in the Columbus
Avenue facade.
A mix of certain apartment sizes within any one structure
may be more socially desirable than strict separation.
(The architects) have attempted to solve the cross
ventilation problem of their cylinder by cutting four deep
wedges. . . to provide a balcony and a kitchen window. . . .
These balconies will be in deep shade and have ;very limited views.
Furthermore, the visual circularity of the scheme is
actually destroyed by the wedges. .
* . The advantages of the
cylinder (minimum exterior wall per square foot of floor area)
is almost entirely negated, . . . yet, the advantages of an X
scheme (maximizing exposures, light and air and the use of
rectilinear space) are not incorporated into the design.
The provision of more units for family use is
desirable. . . .
No private outdoor space is
-69-
shown.
especially
Each of three six-4 bedroom unit blocks is identical
with no attempt here to give desirable visual expression to
the individual dwelling unit.
In addition, the plan indicates an awkwvard "L'
kitchen. . . .
shaped
(The recommendations pick up these various criticisms.)
Following this review, some redesign took place but
still without consultation with the BRA.
The architect, however, felt
there were strong arguments for the form and location of the tower and
was advised by the housing authority to stick with his preferred solu.
tion.
The preference for the tower location in particular was based on
access for the elderly to an adjacent library, the desire to isolate
them from the noisy MBTA station on the corner, higher ground allowing
for increased elevation and view, and greater space available at the
other end of the site for the planning of recreation areas for the
family units.
To resolve these issues and reach anpagreement, the pro-.
ject was brought before the Design Advisory Committee in early April.
At this meeting,
the director of the housing authority clearly made the
point that an impasse had been reached between the two agencies and that
the project was in the hands of the committee for a decision on the
proposed location of the tower.
In addition to the above points, the
BRA pointed out the more negative effects of the tower shadow on back
-,Yards and the nearby Hillson Park when placed in the location proposed
by the architect.
(See figure 8 .)
The committee asked a number of
questions attempting to draw out the functional reasons for the housing
authority preference, apparently attempting to weight the balance be-
-70-
tween the "public" objectives of the BRA and the "private" ones of the
BHA.
It supported the position of the staff, pointing out that it did
not feel that any great burden had been placed on the architect by the
particular site objectives.
This problem appears to be primarily the resultsof poor
communication brought about by the feeling on the part of the housing
authority that it should be responsible only to itself and the Washington Office and an architect who perhaps too willingly accepted a rigid
"chain of command."14 2
The presence of the DAC made it possible to re.
solve one issue, but it appears other problems will continue unless more
frequent and informalJiaison is established.4 3
b.
Private Developers
Most construction coming under the surveillance of design
review is carried out by private developers of various types.
Within
renewal areas these have posed difficulties of a lesser order than those
involving other public bodies.
One is
Two general types may be distinguished.
the investor builder, interested in
ment for its fiscal productivity.
real estate and its
develop.
This productivity may be strongly
affected by the willingness of the authority to support zoning variances
increasing the land value,
or giving aid in the seeking of attractive
FHA mortgages allowing construction with a very small equity.
The
second important type builds for his own use.
These may bebusinesses,
or institutional or individual home builders.
Usually involved are
individual buildings requiring much less assistance with other public
agencies and focusing attention on design matters.
these follow.
-'71..
Several examples of
The Seeking of Profit.
The speculative developer tends
to exert strong pressure to achieve the highest density development
possible for any given site.
This pressure frequently is directed
toward the review staff, asking them to loosen site controls.
Most of
the private developments in the Government Center have produced this
type of pressure.
First Realty Corporation and Cabot Cabot & Forbes
have taken this tack outside renewal areas, and the Waterfront Development Corporation is following suit in the development of Lewis Wharf.
About a year old, the Waterfront Development Corporation is scheduled
to build the redevelopment associated with Lewis Wharf.
The urban re-
newal plan, as pointed out earlier, calls for a diverse but compatible
mixture of uses.
Residential development, it states, can be of a very
unique character, intimately related to the water and to the old brick
and granite buildings which should be retained and rehabilitated for
residential use.
In general it
calls for "rows of structures of moder-
1
ate height running parallel to the long-massive granite structures"
as
the preferred solution.
Its intentions are to preserve the old finger
form of the waterfront for historical and "urban design reasons,"
including a view to the sea from Atlantic Avenue.
The corporation's
plans call for a series of towers, three of which reach out into the
water and one of which fronts on Atlantic Avenue.
It would also like
to build the old granite structure to six stories along its
full length.
To shield the project from noise and increase its privacy, it would have
liked to block off Atlantic Avenue by building parallel to it.
The zoning
of the waterfront on these sites limits the height to that of the rehabilitated structures and the FAR to 2.
-72-
In effect, what the architectural
plans call for are changes in these restrictions and the above objectives to produce a higher return on a small original investment, and
the sacrifice of certain public for private objectives.
The BRA
position is to hold the towers off until later stages of development,
when conditions in the North End become clearer.
A second waterfront scheme mentioned earlier, in South
Boston but not in a renewal area, was proposed by Max Kargman and the
First Realty Corporation.
This would be a $23 million 221(d)3 project
located on Northern Avenue at "Pier 2" about three-quarters of a mile
from the Waterfront project.
The site is described as being a seven-
acre wasteland but, according to the General Plan, is scheduled for
commercial development.
Here a zoning change was involved.
According
to Kargman, Logue opposed the change because he feared competition
between the two waterfront proposals and because Kargman had taken a
stand against "design review censorship."
Kargman points to several of his earlier projects,
including Riverview in
Cambridge and middle-income development in
West Roxbury as examples of attractive housing better than that with
which the BRA has been connected.
-Criticizing Logue, review, and the
BRA approach, Kargman claims he was asked to have his architects make
drawings even though these would have been unrealistic and preliminary
to test borings.
The official reasons, however, and those which were
the basis for the BRA's recommendations opposing the variae,, according
to the Director of Design Review, were that it violates the General Plan
for the city which pinpoints the area for commercial development.
Their
recommendation also points out that it would be a residential island
-73-
a hazardous envirornment surrounded by industry with no
located in
support facilities.
What ensued, according to Kargman,
was a political
fight in which he had the support of the Mayor and the Cardinal.
The
result was that the variance was granted.
If design review was the BRA objective, this case suggests means to push developers into review, although these were unsuccessful in the particular case.
Among them are the granting of a
variance and opposition expressed to the FHA as Logue is reported to
have done.
These are the points on which the speculator is most
sensitive.
The Development Corporation of America, which is involved
in several renewal projects, particularly 221(d)3 housing in Washington
Park and the South End, constitutes a speculative builder that has had
very little difficulty with design review. They have consistently hired
known architects including Tad Stall, The Architects Collaborative,
Jose Luis Sert, and Mies van der Rohe.
According to its president,
James Linehan, a continuous working relationship rather than one of
formal presentation and approval has developed.
Although he does not
consider design to be an important factor in the economic viability of
a project, the Corporation is
architecture.
concerned about producing good quality
In contrast to the First Realty Corporation, which com-
plains about design review, Linehan states that his corporation is able
to do well in renewal areas because they are "builders rather than pro.
moters."
Thus, for example, he claims to have shown a profit on Academy
homes after the First Realty Corporation lost money and backed out.
One can speculate that American Development Corporation's
success is a product of its skill in reducing building costs to a minimum, its prior experience in such cities as New Haven, and its long and
continued efforts to establish good relations with both the BRA and FHA.
By its experience it has learned how to handle the "red tape" of working
with government agencies.
Though not considered vital to economic
viability, 't finds the way to get renewal jobs in Boston is through
design capability.
Development for Personal Use.
The projects most amenable
to review have been undertaken by various private enterprises or institutions which have been building for their own use.
The IMCA in
Washington Park is cited by both the design staff and the architect as
representing an especially smooth working relationship between the architect and the staff.
Located on a "gateway" into Washington Park across
from the shopping center, the design schematics, among other points,
called for diagonal pedestrian movement from the corner.
With a little
modification, this was incorporated in the final design.
The architect
was able also to develop a small tower element to mark the corner by
placing a music listening room on top of a staircase.
The failure of
the Public Works Commission to put in the kind of paving pattern and
sidewalks desired and the need to fence off the play areas for reasons of
liability and insurance were some of the difficulties mentioned by the
architect.
He claims that because of concessions made elsewhere by the
Commission, the BRA was reluctant to make an.issue of the paving here.
The fencing represented a reasonable concession to the private interest
of the YMCA.
-75-
Other small projects in Washington Park, such as the
Boys' Club and two industrial expansions, have been progressing
smoothly.
One of these, mentioned earlier, required some redesigning
by the staff "because the architect needed"ihelp."
It has otherwise
presented no major problem in review.
The Tufts New England Medical Center represents a much
larger undertaking by an institution which is in the very early stages
of development.
An interesting case highlighting coordination and
design flexibility is developing because of its size, importance, complexity, and the difficulties the architects have been experiencing in
fitting the function of the building to the illustrative form suggested
by the BRA.
review.
The project to date has remained in the informal stages of
The parcel plans show a concept based on a series of towers
connected by bridges, one of which constitutes an air rights connection
over Washington Street.
Because the architect has found it inefficient
to use towers and bridges, he has developed a proposal to build a plat-
form over Washington Street.
In addition he has proposed that the
interiors of blocks be used for commercial arcades and that the platform
be penetrated by courts to bring in some light to portions of the street.
According to the architect, the reaction of the BRA project designer was
that the street would then become dark and unpleasant, and that it would
be preferable to have pedestrian activity focused on the street.
There
was also some concern that the commercial development would be unsuccessful economically and in danger of being
The medical center is
converted to medical use.
dependent on the BRA to provide
not only land but also support before the Public Works Commission for
-76-
approval of an air rights scheme.
In spite of the reaction from the ERA
designer, the architect is continuing to develop the scheme in an attempt
to better establish that the center will be well served by the change
without harm to the city.
Summary
The most difficult and intractable design gap to bridge is that
between the BRA and other public agencies.
This may be due to the
superior power of eminent domain exempting the agency from planning
controls, differences in standards, and the inability of the BRA to
select the developer on the basis of his architect.
Not concerned about
zoning variances or financing, and concerned about their own prerogatives, these have less interest in the offered BRA services.
This
among other things has led to breakdowns in continuity of liaison.
The
DAC, on the other hand, becomes an important source for arbitration and
pressure to submit to "voluntary review."
In one case, liaison and
flexibility set the stage for a design breakthrough even though formal
review could not be exercised.
The private speculative developer may see review as a positive
opportunity for assistance in getting information, zoning changes, and
approvals in financing.
Particular users appear to conceive of review
as an acceptableprerequisite and concession for the opportunity to build.
Relatively specific and inflexible design objectives and controls are
seen as important in containing speculative development pressure.
Review works best where there is a strong architect and a
strong working relation between the developer-architect team and the
staff.
Though objectives and controls may be very specific, flexibility
-77-
to meet special needs and accommodate new proposals is seen as desirable
by developers and worthy of consideration by the DAC.
In cases that
have come before the committee, it has weighed carefully the functional
burdens put on the designers by the design objectives before making
concessions.
This is an attempt to assure that neither public nor
private objectives are unduly sacrificed.
CONFLICTING AGENCY OBJECTIVES
By taking a priority position, objectives other than design
have the potential to modify the review process.
In most cases design
is considered the overriding criterion and review a necessary means to
achieve it.
This has discouraged certain developers from investing in
renewal areas.
Public acceptance through the provision of low cost-.
and relocation housing quickly built, on the other hand, has meant some
concessions and short-circuiting of the process.
a.
Good Design
In the typical case, developers have had good architects
or disposition has been delayed until a suitable architect..developer
team has been found or a satisfactory solution achieved.
Though the
speculative investment builders have not been absent, part of the effect
of this policy is
the relative exclusion from renewal areas of developers
not interested in going through the red tape and design development
necessary to get a project accepted.
The First Realty Corporation,
mentioned earlier, has based its decision to stay out on these reasons,
according to Kargman.
He points to bad experiences with renewal in
other cities, and criticizes the BRA concern for the envelope of build-
-78-
ings at the cost of their interior planning.
Other local and national
developers may undoubtedly be staying out for similar reasons.
b.
Public Acceptance and Other Agency Objectives
Low rent housing for relocatees has been an important
objective both as a desirable end in itself and as a means to achieving
public acceptance.
A second new possibility is the individual con-
struction of two-family dwellings, giving priority to relocatees.
Public housing and 221(d)3 housing have been the major
tools for building low and moderate income housing.
Except for housing
the elderly, public housing has met with zbxed reactions from local
groups.
It has not been allowed to go ahead without design approval,
as was pointed out in the case of the public project at Egleston Square.
The 221(d)3 projects, particularly Academy Homes which was the first,
have been pushed very hard.
According to the architect and the develop-
ers, Academy Homes was a political football in which review was done by
the Mayor.
No one, the architect stated, was "picky about design." It
did not go before the Design Advisory Committee.
The only project that the review staff mentioned as a
major failure of review was a second 221(d)3 project.
The developer
had stated that he could build brick and stay within the rent limitations.
But as the project progressed, costs mounted, forcing cutbacks in landscaping and site improvements.
Had design been the major criterion,
additional financing might have been arranged.
A possibility which the BRA may be facing in Charlestown
is the construction of as many as 400 two-family homes built by individual owner-occupants.
Because this may strain the means of some of the
-79-
relocatees who wauld like to build, the BRA housing specialist states
that guidelines and procedures will be very open and lenient.
To handle
this kind of development, the BRA is encouraging individual architects
to volunteer review and consultation services in a manner similar to
legal aid rather than the more formal presentations to the BRA.
Summary
In a small number of cases the desire for quick results and
low cost housing has led to a short-circuiting of the review process.
In cases where relocatees may be building private two-family homes,
procedures and standards will be considerably more open and less formal.
In these cases the Design Advisory Committee plays a minimal role.
STRONG AND WEAK MARKET CONDITIONS
Developer demand in
terms of numbers and financial resources for
a particular site and use may be an important factor in supporting the
degree of specificity of controls and objectives, making those which are
more demanding feasible.
Where there is a weak market or many unknowns,
flexibility is an increasingly important factor.
Here there is likely
to be a larger number of compromises.
a.
Strong Market
Early market studies showed impressive demand for new
office space,
hotel accommddations,
retail space, and apartments in the
downtown area. This appears to be true for most residential neighborhoods as well where the 221(d)3 program has been a major resource.
The most complex sites and demanding objectives and
controls can be found in the Government Center.
few private projects is generally strong.
There demand for the
For example, the Cabot Cabot
& Forbes office tower now under construction was selected through a
developer design competition. Here and in other cases the design staff
has been able to demand arcades, pedestrian penetrations, and other
concessions.
In the case of 1 Center Plaza it was possible to force
the developer to include in the facade the same brick as is used in
the Government Center Plaza instead of building solely in concrete.
Similarly it was possible with the assistance of the
Design Advisory Committee to produce a change in Pei's design for a
Waterfront proposal.
The site plans had originally called for a group
of four apartment towers, but the developer found that foundation conditions made this unfeasible.
Instead he made a proposal for three
buildings which the design staff and the DAC considered too "squat."
After much negotiation the scheme was changed to three forty-story
towers.
Though exceeding the height limit, it
adequately fulfilled
the plan objective of framing the southhen end of the Waterfront
project.
In 221(d)3 projects, objectives and controls have generally been more diagrammatic and the site situations less complex.
Reflecting the strong demand, several groups have expressed interest
in sites recently opened in the South End.
Architects that have been
hired for such projects include welLknown names like Karl Koch, Hugh
Stubbins, Tad Stall, and Walter Gropius.
As was pointed out earlier,
the BRA considers only one of the first projects a design failure.
it
This
attributes to its own inexperience at the time and the failure to
foresee that mounting costs would make it impossible to meet both design
and rent objectives.
satisfaction.
Normally, the projects have turned out to their
b.
Weak Market
Some parcels are or have been searching for developers.
Only recently has there been received an offer for the Government Center
Parcel 7 which has long been on the market both in toto and in subparcels.
It presents difficult planning problems because of the NBTA
below one corner, its long, thin, and curving mass, and pedestrian easements.
In addition it faces both the new and the old with the Govern-
ment Center on one side and the Blackstone Block on the other.
To make
it more attractive, a few concessions have been made, including a change
from what was at one time a curved block standing on piloti for its full
length, providing a stronger visual penetration to the Blackstone Block
from the Goverment Center.
Similarly the Sears Crescent which is scheduled for
rehabilitations has been a difficult site.
With the strong support of
the DAC, Pei, Logue, and others have resisted pressures from outside the
authority to clear and develop the site for more intensive use. The
Development Corporation of America has finally decided to attempt to
meet its challenge, hopefully rewarding the BRA's patience without the
need to make concessions.
A few projects remain dormant or have been delayed for
lack of financing.
One such project in Washington Park consists of
strip commercial facilities.
It was stated, however, that design re-
quirements would not be changed to make it more attractive.
Two churches
which were to occupy gateway points in Washington Park have similarly
been unable to raise funds.
Though this may represent a lost opportunity
to get the best suited and most meaningful use of these sites, it will
probably not seriously affect the visual gateway affect intended.
-82.
Summary
Where objectives and controls are specificaand demanding, strong
market conditions have helped support them.
In those situations where
objectives and controls are more diagrammatic and the market is strong,
it has been possible to select good architects and demand changes within
the financial limitations posed by the type of development.
As the market gets weaker, there has been some tendency to
make more concessions, though this is not always the case nor has it
been in highly significant matters.
RENEWAL AND NON-RENEWAL PROJECT AREAS
Though the legal power of review in non.-renewal areas does not
exist, a few projects have been the object of design concern and/or
brought in for design review. The projects by the First R-ea3tY-
Corpora.
tion on Pier 2 and fronting on the Boston Common are two such non-renewil
area projects already mentioned.
A project brought in voluntarily for
review is one being developed by Cabot Cabot & Forbes designed by Hugh
Stubbins.
This latter project also overlooks the Common on Arlington
Street.
Each of these projects lies on the Capital Web. The waterfront
project never came up for design review. Plans for the Tremont Street
tower were made available to the design staff and the Design Advisory
Committee in an atmosphere of crisis and without the developer's
presence. In discussing the latter project the committee, according to
the minutes of the particular meeting, "felt a letter should be sent to
the Mayor and Mr. Logue requesting that the building be completely re.
planned.
If this proved impossible," it continues, "then the Committee
-83-
would write a second letter recommending that a design consultant be
brought in to handle the exterior."
The letter written states the
following:45
The massing of the building occupies so much breadth at
such great height that it does not fulfil the potential for
encouraging disciplined high-rise future construction in harmony
with other important business development along this valuable
frontage. The Committee is not only deeply concerned about the
unfortunate exterior form of the proposed structure, but it is
concerned for the building's interior environment as well. To
mention only one example, there is absolutely no justification
for asking human beings to enter and leave their apartments via
a 5' wide interior corridor running an uninterrupted length
of 221".
It concludes that such a structre "would represent a very
regrettable design disaster for the city of Boston."
Thennet effect of
this effort was the retention of a Boston architectural firm to handle
the building envelope.
However, the emphasis on the interiors of apart..
ments at the expense of the exteriors continues.
Brought up voluntarily for review, the Arlington Street project
would appear to be in part an attempt by the developer to gain the
support of the review staff and the Design Advisory Committee in obtain,.
ing a zoning variance..
It also appears to be an attempt by the archi-
tect, who is a member of the committee, to persuade the developer to
abandon a personal design preference.
On this issue the promoter,
according to Cabot Cabot & Forbes president, is reported to have flown
the architect around the city showing the typical sloping roof forms on
the tops of towers.
In reference to permitting the construction of the tower, the
committee stated that if the city of Boston does so decide to allow
construction to the height desired, "the building will have to stand
-84-
very severe scrutiry.I"
It
continues that the design gives evidence
of a high professional standard.
In its criticism, however, it points
out that the bold modeling and deep reveals of its facade may be too
far removed in character from the more delicate treatment of existing
facades along Commonwealth Avenue.
It was most critical of the treat.-
ment of the top of the tower, where a sloping pyramidal metal roof
culminates in masonry towers that are probably part of elevator shafts.
It then states:
This solution seems promoted by a nostalgic wish to
recall traditional forms, but it is not a successful architectural device. The scale of the elements is so large that
they convey a feeling of crudity and heaviness; moreover, the
design emphasizes and glorifies the mechanical systems. It
would be moreappropriate to terminate against the sky with
some luxury penthouse apartments whose large windows and roof
terraces would be a more eloquent expression of the human use
of this wonderful site. A move in this direction would still
be consistent with the wish to have an interesting skyline
rather than terminating with a flat horizontal line.
These criticisms are interesting in that they take place in a
vacuum with no established formal criteria.
The first concentrates on
form, though what is meant by disciplined construction is undefined.
The second is interetting because of its use of both form and non-form
criteria:
the conflict in character with existing facades
--
form
continuity similar to the emphsis in the U.R. plans; and a change from
historic roof forms
--
form discontinuity based on a condemnation of
nostalgia and the elevation of human expression, indicating the search
for some higher objectives.
Other more ordinary or less visible projects outside renewal
areas do not appear to have been of concern. The only other project
which came up in various discussions was the marshalling of the BRA
design staff to help the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission guide
.85.
development by showing a positive and feasible alternative to a
particular proposal.
Summary
Projects on nor-renewal sites have been essentially exempt
from review except by political pressure in crisis situations or
where the developer.-architects find reason to submit voluntarily.
.86.
CHAPTER VI:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Boston Redevelopment Authority has undertaken a wide
spectrum of design activities.
Emerging is
a more meaningful and
helpful public policing of public and private development.
Through
urban renewal and design review, the BRA has become an important second
client to architects and developers.
As this second client it has
effectively provided a two-way communication channel bridging the gap
between the design plan and its implementation.
Its effectiveness is largelyy a product of the rights derived
from eminent domain, the prominence and prestige of key political and
administrative figures, and the high priority they have given design.
Given this priority, it has proven possible to shape procedures which
result in only a small number of design concessions in the various
contexts examined.
Other things being equal, each of these contexts
has implied different modes of operation.
They have caused variation
from demanding to open objectives, from reliance on prestige and pressure to reliance on a smooth and continuous working relationship, and
they have affected the desire and need to make concessions.
Though the above represents the main focus of the thesis, it
is
worth exploring briefly some of the mary problemsaand issues that have
been raised by review.
From these some speculations are presented as
as to how the system might be improved.
-87-
Assuming that it is desirable
to extend review outside renewal areas as indicated by the Capital
Improvements Program and General Plan, these speculations will relate
to both renewal and non-renewal areas.
ISSUES
Most of the issues relate to the review system in general.
few are directedd toward the BRA practices in particular.
A
Others point
to the need for a design theory which defines a strategy of control
with strong legal foundations as well as implications for design.
a.
Allowing Creativity
Many argue that control will destroy or hinder the
creative genius of a pluralistic system.
is a dull one.
The ordered city, they say,
Through review it will suffer a loss in the spontaneity,
contrast, clash, and variety that make up its delight and urbanity.
Further, they say, to be innovative one must take the good along with
the bad.
A corollary is that the aesthetic values of the people
running the system are arbitrary and unarticulated.
Beside inhibiting
creativity, this is said to result in cost and time expenditures for
the architects.4
Others say that such freedom in the extreme leads to
confusion at worst and picturesqueness and quaintness at best;
and
that with rising standards of living and higher expectations, design
should be more and more a public concern. Though some architects inter.
viewed expressed some concern about the scope of review, few complained
about being unduly constrained. Many feel zoning to be a worse constrainst because of its inflexibility. In design there are many points on
which a fairly wide consensus exists.
..
88.
Implied is the need to make and leave creative
opportunities as is attempted by the BRA, to provide a measure of
flexibility, to take care in suppressing the complexity of the city,
and to have clear objectives.
b.
Placing Responsibilt
Some developers interviewed argued that they are the
ones who are primarily responsible for the success or failure of a
design
--
that they put in the money, have to make projects work and
rent, lose money if they fail
acting in good faith.
--
and that they should be treated as
Advice is B&nsidered fine, but control is too
great an interference.50
A corollary to this argument is the develop-
ers' contention that the economic viability of a project is more
dependent on project interiors.
It is contended that architects and
those reviewing tend to favor the envelope and are more concerned about
monuments and about favorable comment from their confreres.
Others argue that projects also represent a major
investment from the city. In urban renewal the very heavy human costs
must be in part offset by the best in design return.
51
In addition
the heavy demand for some kinds of development makes design a very low
priority in terms of economic viability. If this changes, the cost may
be paid by the city in future slums and redevelopment.
In addition
studies in perception and communication theory, rising living standards
and expectations, and the search for beauty and delight in cities imply
the need to attach considerable importance to exterior form.
-89-
c.
Avoiding Corruption
Some argue that where there is administrative control
and flexibility, the American political system opens the door to
corruption.
One should not mix politics with architecture.
points out, if
As Kargman
one is in a difficult situation, he is best off hiring
someone from the "in group."
52
As shown in renewal, discretion and flexibility are
closely linked with achieving the best results.
This and the oppor-
tunity for corruption must in part be played off against each other.
It
can in part be mitigated by political and professional watchdogging.
An objective is to reduce to a reasonable range the opportunities for
corruption and for conflict of interest.
d.
Establishing Strategy of Control
Some cities that have undertaken review through zoning
have based their approach on such things as protection of property
values or historic preservation.
53
Others, such as the BRA in urban renewal, are attempting
to establish a positive framework based on the assumption that design
quality is desirable in itself. 54
At the largest scale, this includes
the concept of the "Capital Web" to determine which sites are most
critical in providing both orientation and social information, and what
elements of the environment are most subject to public control.
be argued here that other elements should be included.
It
will
These will be
based on assumptions about the questions of what are the most "sensual"
elements, which are most important to people, and which are the most
subject to control at this large scale. Most important parts of the BRA
design program are at the project level, where there is a greater empha-
sis on sensuous form.
-90-
e.
Other Problems
Other problems have been suggested elsewhere in the
paper.
Staff continuity and quality were considered critical.
These
are important because of the close and continuous working relationship that must be established between staff and architect-developer
teams if the full review process is to be effective.
If review is
extended, the problem of overloading the Design Advisory Committee
might be worse than at present.
Beside overload, lack of participa-
tion in policy decisions, loss of interest and continued participation,
and the dangers of forming an "in group" with conflicts of interest
were also mentioned as problems for the committee.
It
is also
suggested that review of future change is not provided for.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are suggested as means by which the review might
be extended and improved.
a.
Creation of a "Perceptual Web"
To incorporate other significant sensuous elements
located in space, to strengthen the aesthetic and legal basis for
review, to define which elements are most critical for design and
control, and to structure what may be left for unreviewed development, a "Perceptual Web" might supplement the "Capital Web."
The Capital Web includes some ideas taken from perception
theory.
These include the structuring of orientational information
suggested by Lynch and others as being important to the health and
welfare of the individual.5 5
Even here it was pointed out as omitting
important parts of the city. The "Perceptual Web" also suggests other
kinds of information as being important both to individual welfare and
-91-
to the creation of a sense of delight.
Also implied by investigations
into perception is the need to provide range and diversity of perceptual information within some health and comfort limits.
These may
include such things as a connection between the formal image and
socially, historically, functionally, and visually significant elements
of the environment; and more control of the communication processes by
receivers and senders.56
Those elements that are considered to be most important communication inputs in the environment and which can be controlled are suggested as those which might constitute a system of priorities.
Those
at the highest level are those which might be subject to the greatest
direct control.
Others at lower levels might be left for more spon.
taneous development.
Thus tight controls at a critical "node" might
direct sensuous elements ranging from space, light, activity, surfaces,
and meaningful things (signs and objects), to noise and smell.
b.
Structure Hierarchy of Objectives
To provide a positive framework for design and a balance
between control and flexibility, the design program might be structured
to different levels of control. Those elements considered most critical
in a patti u1ab dipus#ion might be tightly fixed. Those considered
important considerations as a basis for rejection but which might be
violated with approval would constitute a second level. Those considered
desirable but not necessary would constitute a third level.
The most frequent control of building at the first level
would be limits on density.
Height, setback, massing, access, circula-
tion, and other and often similar controls as used by the BRA might vary
between the first and second.
Basic objectives such as continuity,
scale, and visibility might also be at this level.
At the third level
might be such things as social, functional,"humarP expression, and others
-92-
which may be worthy of investigation but which represent highly controversial issues.
Also at this level might be suggestions for experimen-
tation in design.
c.
Improve Incentives for Voluntary Cooperation
In early stages in the extension of review and later in
non-critical areas, voluntary cooperation could be encouraged through
Other government agencies might be
an extension of liaison services.
the first required to submit to reviewfollowed by private developers.
Incentives for voluntary cooperation could be improved
through positive efforts in expediting and coordinating design, helping
developers cut through governmental red tape (including zoning and
design program changes), providing information, and investigating
prototype design and construction.
An extra degree of flexibility in
the design program might be provided where plans are submitted to
review.
The use of voluntary techniques may be necessary as long as
the political atmosphere is hostile to the extension of BRA power.
d.
Strengthen Continuity
Where there is a high turnover rate of staff, methods
for the keeping of records and improving the exchange of information
should be strengthened. To maintain long-run quality, responsibilities
should be kept at a high level and remain action oriented. To avoid
expanding at the cost of quality and to provide long-range continuing
review, more functions might be farmed out to consultants, particularly
if
review is
extended.
As pointed out, an effective program is largely dependent
on the quality of personnel.
A good quality also serves to avoid some
of the potential dangers of corruption in the system.
To maintain the
quality, there must be a sympathetic administration and suitable
incentives.
Jobs, at least in
the short run, appear to be attractive
to designers for experience in urban design and because of the action
-93-
orientation of the program.
At higher levels where continuity is
most critical, high salaries and status are also important factors.
Responsibilities emphasized might be those thich are
most action and design oriented.
If surveillance activities are
extended, these might be given to consultants hired by the BRA or by
various community organizations with the right given to the BRA to
review decisions.
This would privide, too, a basis for continuing
review after redevelopment has taken place,
57
and would help keep the
staff small with a high esprit de corps.
e.
Avoid Overload and Strengthen Communication
To avoid the overload of the Design Advisory Committee,
to avoid the imposition of greater burdens on its time, and to allow a
greater participation in design policy deitiions, the projects brought
before it should be those which represent the most significant design
issues or critical situations. To avoid conflict of interest and to
strengthen the force and vitality of the committee, its recommendations
should remain advisory, rotation of membership should take place more
frequently, and membership and invitational participation might draw
on persona from design professions other than architecture and cities
other than Boston.
The final review authority and the major load of cases
should lie with the staff in order to make most effective use of the
DAC.
Because many of the most important decisions take place in design
policy, it may be important and especially helpful to use the committee
to. review staff and consultant proposals.
These policies, which effect
parcelization of projects, landscape, massing, circulation, and the like
have as much if not more effect on the shape of final projects as do
proposals by developers.
To strengthen design communication to the public,
meetings and certain recommendations might be conducted with greater
fanfare.
This might be done by bringing in additional professionals
-94-
and lay members where appropriate,
public relations.
press releases,
and by making a greater effort in
For example, use might be made of written discussions,
and interviews on important design and policy decisions
as they take place.
-95-
Figure I
BOSTON:
"CAPITAL WEB"
-.96.
Figure 2
GOVERMENT CETER:
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PIAN
)
0
%~~
T
AARm
-97-
na
I
C)
I.
I
Lz1
0
E
PARCEL
7
EASEMENT PLAN
Government Center
Urban Renewal
Area R-35
LRA
I
'-3
I
I
tt)
H
'-3
tzJ
H
0
PARCEL -7
S I TE
SECTION -2
GovernmentCenter
Urban Renewal
Area R-35
FiUwe 5
1,
NPt
I
Ii
I
i'i
-iii'
I
liji
ii'
dli
I
1
I
/
L~iEI
C
a.
~
I~tI'blIIi~~f4jti
II
C
6
mloom
Figure 6
WASHINGTON PARK:
IIJUSTRATIVE SITE PAN
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
Washington Park Urban Renewal Area
MOTON
EDEVELOPMENT
AUTHOITY
Rehaiitation
NewHousing
NewNeighborhood Shopping
Center
NewComnmnity ShoppingCenter
NewSchool
New Church
New Civic Center
NewCommunity Facility
NewParkand OpenSpace
NewIndustrial Facility
north
scale
-101.
WALNUT
HYMAN HILLSON PK)PARK
I
I
- --
---
r
Tl-
~1
-L
7,~
r-
-
I
c
4
-
-
-4
rr
RECOMMENDED
PEDESTRIAN
RECOMMENDED
VEHICULAR
Cn
ACCESS
r
r
__
F R AN K L IN
P A R K
z
3t
ACCESS
I
HO E FO
SKETCH
t" = too
"
K
WA NUT
YaM
usold
sm
PAR
1C
aL
0
ti:
4
-
1 -
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
0
W
COD
RECOMMENDEO
PEDESTRIAN
RECOMMENDED
VEHICULAR
ACCES
ACCESS
0
0
F R A N K LIN
P A R K
HME
r
L
SCHOOL
FOR
AGED COUPLES
STREET
zC
SKETCH
" 2 1OO.
"A"
I
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER I
1.
Boston Redevelopment Authority, Downtown Waterfront Faneuil
Hall Urban Renewal Plan, Section 603, "Design Review," 1965,
p. 24.
2.
Urban Renewal Administration, "Design Review in' Urban Renewal,"
Technical Guilde 15, Washington, D.C., 1965, p. 2.
3.
Based on my interpretation and elaboration of a definition put
forth by Kevin lynch in a seminar.
4.
Urban Renewal Administration, o.
cit., p. 4.
CHAPTER III
6.
Roger Montgomery, "Improving the Design Process in Urban
Renewal," Journal of the American Institute of Planners (JAIP),
February 1965, pp. 7-19.
7.
See Charles M. Haar, Land Use Planning A Casebook on the Use
and Misuse of Urban Land, Boston: Little Brown and Company,
1959, p. 559; and Charles S. Asher, "Private Covenants in Urban
Redevelopment," in Urban Redevelopment: Problems and Practices,
Coleman Woodbury (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1959, pp. 223-313.
8.
It has also been pointed out that minimizing the restrictions
may have the added advantage that the developer may pay more
for the land if given a freer hand. He may also come up with
a scheme which improves on thatoof the local public agency in
terms of local community benefits as well as creating maximum
site value. See Richard U. Ratcliff, Private Investment in Urban
Redevelopment, Research Report 17, Real Estate Research Program,
Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of
California, Berkeley, 1961, p. 19.
9.
Montgomery, pp. 17-18.
10.
In a 1962 survey of over 500 local agencies to determine the
basic disposition techniques used, the criteria for selection
of a particular method, what policies as to method existed if any,
and what legal restrictions may have been posed by enabling legislation, it was found that no one method was clearly favored.
..104-
For other conclusions see James H. Scheuer, Eli Goldston,
and Wilton S. Sogg, "Disposition of Urban Land W A Fundamental
Problem in the Rebuilding of our Cities," Columbia Law Review,
volume 62, 1962, pp. 959-991.
11.
Ratcliff, p. 9.
CHAPTER III
12.
Walter McQuade, "Boston: What Can a Sick City Do?" Fortune,
reprint Time Incorporated, 1964, p. 2.
13.
B.R.A., Renewing Boston' s Municipal Facilities, Capital
Improvements Program 1963-.975, p. 48.
14.
B.R.A., 1965-1965 General Plan for the City of Boston and the
Regional Core, 1966, p. 14.
15.
Ibid., p. 23.
16.
Ibid., p. 24.
17.
Ibid., p. 149.
18.
Ibid.
19.
William Slayton, "Design in Urban Renewal," quoted by the Urban
Renewal Administration Letter #249 titled "Design in Urban
Renewal."
20.
B.R.A., 1965-1975 General Plan. . ., p. 148. For example, the
citizen's group in Roxbury rejected a series of towers along a
newly-created boulevard. Architectural site plans and drawings
have been found to beuuseful devices in persuading local groups
to accept renewal plans and particular projects. The generalized illustrative site plan was included in the Charlestown
Urban Renewal Plan because of local pressure. Logue also claims
that part of the reason for the rejection of a recent public
housing proposal in Roxbury lay in the failure of the Boston
Housing Authority to present drawings during the neighborhood
meeting. He states, according to the May 14, 1966, Christian
Science Monitor, that this was needed because the people do not
"have the confidence in the public housing program that they do
in our work."
21.
Urban Renewal Administration Letter #249; emphasizing the impor.
tance of design is among these items.
22.
See Chapter II, p. 20.
23.
See "Signs in the City" by the M.I.T. Department of City and
Regional Planning for an alternative approach to controlling
and ordering the use of explicit communications.
24.
See David A. Crane, "Public Art of City Building," The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
March 1964, p. 91. The public design function is to "leave
and make creative opportunities for the private sphere."
25.
B.R.A.,
p. 6.
26.
Ibid., p. 8.
27.
B.R.A., South End Plan, Section 603.
28.
Urban Renewal Administration, "Design Objectives in Urban
Renewal," Technical Guide No. 16, p. 9.
29.
B.R.A.,
30.
See Chapter III, p. 37.
31.
Another factor favoring the final acquiesence of the Public
Works Commissioner was that a Catholic church is the sponsor
for the project.
32.
Richard Wallace Nathan, "The Government Center of Boston,"
The Inter-University Case Program, October 1960, p. 8
33.
Pei's contribution to the earlier scheme, according to Lynch,
consisted primarily of simplifying the traffic pattern so that
the center became a superblock of which the Federal Office
Building became a part. He also modified some of the building
forms and siting, developed the tight controls on their height,
align6d them withthe Crescent, and moved the subway to allow
the construction of the City Hall on the lower part of the
plaza. The major spatial concepts came out of the earlier
Downtown Waterfront Faneuil Hall Urban Renewal Plan,
Government Center Urban Renewal Plan, p. 10.
scheme.
34.
Memo to the members of the DAC,
35.
Meeting, February 13, 1964. (Records of DAC meetings are kept
informally by the Assistant to the Director of Design Review,
Arlyn Hastings.)
36.
Meeting, October 1963.
37.
Ibid.
38.
Ibid.
..106.
February 1963.
39.
James Dolan.
40.
These cases are in order (1) a Washington Park 221(d)3 project,
November 1963; (2) a tower for the elderly next to the shopping
center in Washington Park, meeting, October 1964; and (3) a towDr
proposed by Cabot Cabot & Forbes for the corner of Washington and
Commonwealth, see p. 85, Chapter V.
41.
"Boston Redevelopment Authority - Design Review," criticism of
the preliminary submission, (no date).
CHAPTER V
42.
Based on interviews with the Boston Housing Authority and the
architect. See also Note 21 where the B.H.A. is noted as being
criticized for its failure to be responsive to the community.
43.
Some public housing projects are being integrated with 221(d)3
housing. Though they have not always been presented with the
most desirable site situations, they have accepted both the
designs and the architects of the larger development.
44.
George B. Merry, "Sears Crescent, Restoration to Save Bobton
Landmark," Christian Science Monitor, April 23, 1966. This
quotes the advisory committee as saying, "We feel it is essen.
tial to retain and rehabilitate this building because of the
important historical continuity that it will provide between
the new Governent Center and older buildings. . . adjacent
to tt
45.
Letter, October 20, 1964.
46.
Draft letter, November 1, 1965.
CHAPTER VI
47.
Kargaan claims Shepley&Bulfine had revery bad press. He also
claims his work is better than that under the B.R.A. Also see
Joint Committee on Design Control, Henry Fagin (ed), Planning
a C u
Appearance, 1958, Chapter II, "Philosophy and
Action Program."
48.
William Schroeder, an architect in Karl Koch's firm.
49.
Comment by Lynch in a seminar.
50.
Kargman. He states heiis not a "bad guy" .. that one can't
dump bad buildings on suckers. Also the attitude of the Public
Housing Authority.
-107.
51.
See Scheuer, Goldston, and Sogg, op. cit.
52.
He states Logue would have no part of this if he knew of it,
but it is hard to avoid.
53.
See Joint Committee, op. cit., for other approaches.
54.
Ibid. (Note 47).
55.
lynch, Image of the
City.
In terms of orientation, these have
been reduced by Lynch to a very small number
districts, nodes, edges, paths.
56.
See M.I.T. "Signs in the City."
57.
See Asher, op. cit.
-108.
1964.
--
landmarks,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Howard & Greeley,
Consultants, et al.
Government Center Project, Technical
Report on Final Development Plan
for the Government Center Area
Prepared for the City Planning Board
of Boston, Massachusetts
June 1959
Donald Appleyard
"Visual Design and Control in Guayana"
Memorandum
December 1961
Donald Appleyard, Kevin Lynch,
and John Myer
View from the Road
The HIT Press, Cambridge
Charles S. Asher
"Private Covenants in Urban Redevelopment"
1964
Urban Redevelopment:
Problems and
Practices
Coleman Woodbury (ed)
University of Chicago Press
Chicago 1959, pp. 223-313
Edmund N. Bacon
"A Case Study in Urban Design"
Journal of the American Institute of
Planners
August 1960, pp. 224-225
"Urban Design as a Force in Comprehensive
Planning"
Journal of the American Institute of
Planners
February 1963
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Downtown Waterfront, Faneuil Hall
Urban Renewal Plan
1964, Amended 1965
1965/1975 General Plan for the City of
Boston and the Regional Core
1966
"Developers Kit, Government Center Parcel 711
Government Center Urban Renewal Plan
Boston Redevelopment Authority
(continued)
Renewing Boston' s Municipal Facilities,
Capital Improvements Program 1963/175
South End Urban Renewal Plan
Urban Renewal Plan, Washington Park
Urban Renewal Area
David Braybrooke and
C. E. Lindblom
The Strategy of Decision
The Free Press of Glencoe
1963, Chapters 1..6
Esthetic Control in a Changing
Sidney N. Brower
Environment
MIT Thesis, Department of City and
Regional Planning
1964
"Expressive Environment"
The Architectural Forum
April 1966, pp. 38.40
"The Signs We Learn to Read"
Landscape
Autumn 1965
Lyman Brownfield
"Disposition Problem in Urban
Redevelopment"
Law and Contemporary Problems
1960, pp. 732+
J. S. Bruner, J. J. Goodnow,
and G. A. Austin
A Study of Thinking
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
1956
Stephen Carr
"Knowing the City"
Unpublished Paper
Stephen Carr and George Kurilko
"Vision and Memory in the View from
the Road"
Progress Report
Joint Center for Urban Stidiessof
MIT and Harvard
1MIT Department of City and Regional
Planning
May 25, 1964
David A. Crane
"The City Symbolic"
Journal of the American Institute of
Planners
November 1960
-110-
David A. Crane
(continued)
"The Public Art of City Building"
The Annals of the American Acadeny
of Political and Social Science
March 1964, pp. 84-94
Karl W. Deutsch
"On Social Comunication and the
Metropolis"
Daedalus
Winter 1961, pp. 99-110
Eli Goldston, Allan 0. Hunter,
and Guido A. Rothrauff, Jr.
"Urban Redevelopment - The Viewpoint
of Counsel for a Private Redeveloper"
Law and Contemporary Problems
Winter 1961
Charles M. Haar
Land-Use Planning, A Casebook on
the Use and Misuse of Urban Land
Boston: Little Brown and Company
1959
Joint Committee on Design Control
Henry Fagin (ed)
Planning and Community Appearance
New York City
1958
Gyorgy Kepes
"Notes on Expression and Communication
in the Cityscape"
Daedalus
Winter 1961, pp. 147-165
David Lowenthall
"Geography, Experience, and Imagination:
Towards a Geographical Epistemology"
Annals of the Association of
American Geographies
September 1961, pp. 241.260
Kevin Lynch
"The City as Environment"
Scientific American
September 1965
Image of the City
Cambridge: The MIT Press and Harvard
University Press
1960
"Quality in City Design"
Unpublished paper prepared for
Princeton Conference on Design in America
April 1964
Kevin Lynch, John Myer et al.
Report on the Downtown Waterfront.
Faneuil Hall Renewal Plan
Waterfront Redevelopment Division
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
June 1962
.111.
Fumihiko Maki
Investigation of Collective Form
Special Publication No. 2
The School of Architecture
Washington University, St. Louis
June 1964
Massachusetts Institute of
"Signs in the City"
Technology, Department of
City and Regional Planning
1964
Walter McQuade
"Boston: What Can a Sick City Do?"
Fortune, reprint Time Inc.
Richard L. Meier
A Communications Theory of Urban Growth
Cambridge: The MIT Press
1962
Roger Montgomery
"Improving the Design Process in
Urban Renewal"
Journal of the American Institute of
Planners
February 1965
Richard Wallace Nathan
"The Government Center of Boston"
The Inter-University Case Program
45 East 65th Street, New York
Unpublished draft
October 1960
Christian Norberg-Schulz
Intentions in Architecture
Rome: Allen and Unwin Ltd.
1963
Sverre Pedersen
"Architectural Control Over Town
Development in Norway"
International Housing and Town
Planning Bulletin, No. 23
August 1930
Richard U. Ratcliff
tPrivate Investment in Urban
Redevelopment"
Research Report 17, Real Estate
Research Program, Institute of Business
and Economic Research, University of
California, Berkeley
1961
Jurgen Ruesch and Weldon Vees
Non-Verbal Communication:
Notes on the
Visual Perception of Human Relations
Berkeley: University of California Press
1956
James H. Scheuer, Eli Goldston,
and Wilton S. Sogg
"Disposition of Urban Land
--
A
Fundamental Problem in the Rebuilding
of Our Cities"
Columbia Law Review
1962, pp. 959-991
William Slayton
"Design Goals for Urban Renewal"
Architectural Record
November 1963, 149-152
"State and Local Incentives for
Urban Renewal"
Law and Contemporary Problems
1960, pp. 793+
"Toward Excellence in Urban Design"
Speech
April 1965
Paul D. Spreiregen
Urban Design:
The Architecture of
Towns and Cities
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
1965
James Q. Wilson (ed)
Urban Renewal:
Controversy
Cambridge:
The Record and the
The NIT Press
1966
Urban Renewal Administration
Design Objectives in Urban Renewal
Documents, Technical Guide 16
Washington, D.C.
1965
Design Review in Urban Renewal
Technical Guide 15
Washington, D.C.
1965
-113-